Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dilip Gangaram Patil, an advocate, filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No.3, Sunil Popatlal Jain, as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for District Dhule, made pursuant to a government notification dated 05.07.2016. The petitioner also sought a direction to appoint him instead, based on recommendations by the Interview Committee and the High Power Committee. The court noted that the petitioner did not seriously press the relief for his own appointment. The primary issue was the validity of Respondent No.3's appointment under the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 2014. The court found that the Government had not complied with the statutory rules, particularly the requirement of consultation with the High Court. The appointment was therefore quashed and set aside. The court did not grant the petitioner's prayer for appointment, as he had no vested right. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justices R.M. Borde and K.L. Wadane on 06.06.2017.
Headnote
A) Appointment of Law Officers - District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor - Validity of Appointment - Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 2014 - The appointment of Respondent No.3 was challenged for non-compliance with statutory rules. The court held that the Government failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules, particularly regarding consultation with the High Court. The appointment was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Appointment of Law Officers - Consultation with High Court - Mandatory Requirement - Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 2014 - The court held that consultation with the High Court is mandatory before appointing a District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. The Government's failure to consult the High Court rendered the appointment invalid. (Paras 5-8) C) Appointment of Law Officers - Right to Appointment - No Vested Right - The petitioner, though recommended by the Interview Committee and High Power Committee, has no vested right to appointment. The court declined to direct his appointment. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of Respondent No.3 as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for District Dhule is valid and in accordance with the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 2014.
Final Decision
The appointment of Respondent No.3 as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for District Dhule is quashed and set aside. The petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor must be in accordance with statutory rules
- consultation with High Court is mandatory
- non-compliance renders appointment invalid
- petitioner not entitled to appointment despite being recommended by committee.
