Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19475 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Bakshi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt,Bhagwan Dutt Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri B.D.Pandey, learned counsel for appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record.
2. This is thoroughly misconceived and ill advised writ petition. Petitioner was made panel lawyer in Tehsil Naugarh and completed his tenure. Thereafter his renewal has been declined by impugned order dated 30.04.2019.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that denial of renewal is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and in this regard placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others 2019(7) ADJ 735. We have gone through the aforesaid judgment and find that the same has no application to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, there inquiry was conducted in which it was found that certain files were missing. On the basis of inquiry report, panel lawyer was removed thus Court found that it is stigmatic in nature and hence compliance of principles of natural justice is necessary. But the same fact are not available in the present case. Here, after completion of tenure, renewal has been declined.
4. Empanelment of a lawyer does not confer any legal right upon him/her to claim renewal as a matter of right. The issue with regard to appointment of Government Counsel has been considered by a Bench of three Judges in State of U.P. and others vs. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714. Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others (2016) 15 SCC 289 has held that in view of aforesaid larger bench judgment, earlier judgment rendered by two judges bench of Supreme court i.e.Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 and any judgment rendered thereafter would not hold the field insofar as it is inconsistent with three judges judgment in State of U.P. and others vs. Johri Mal (supra).
5. In State of U.P. and others vs. Johri Mal (supra) Court said that Government Counsels do not enjoy statutory rights with respect to renewals of tenures and State Government enjoyed discretionary powers in this respect. In such matter, Courts must be circumspect in exercise of judicial review. The curial performance of advocates should not be the sole criterion for their reappointment as Government Counsel and that State Government must be free to repose trust and confidence in the persons whom they choose to appoint as its advocates. Further, engagement of a Government Counsel does not bring within its ambit concept of public office. In the matter of such empanelment, choice is that of Government and none can claim a right to be appointed. That must necessarily be so because it is a position of great trust and confidence.
6. Appointment of penal lawyer or Government Counsel does not mean that they are appointed to a civil post and thereby got a vested right of continuity. The judgment of Johri Mal was followed in State of UP v. Rakesh Kumar Keshri (2011) 5 SCC 341; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 117; Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 277; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Satyavrat Singh (2014) 14 SCC 548 and State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others (supra).
7. In State of Punjab and others vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (2016) 6 SCC 1, Court observed that appointment of Government Counsel is not just a professional engagement but had a public element attached to it and therefore, it should be unaffected by any political or extraneous consideration and Government must engage most competent of the lawyers to represent them in Courts.
8. In the present case, it is not the case of petitioner that after declining his renewal, competent authority has proceeded to make appointment on political or other reason. It is also not the case of petitioner that on account of any mala fide, renewal has been denied. In view thereof, we find no ground for judicial review of the matter in question.
9. Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 KA