Appointment To Posts Of DGC/ADGC (Crl) Only A Professional Engagement Which Can Be Terminated Sans Notice/Reason: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that appointment to the posts of District/Additional Government Counsel (Criminal) [DGC/ADGC (Crl.)] by the State Government is a professional engagement of an advocate and the same is not a civil post and hence, such an engagement can be terminated on either side without notice and without assigning any reason.

Holding that the action of the State in not renewing the tenure can't be subjected to judicial scrutiny, the bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I observed thus:

"The appointee does not have any right for renewal or reappointment on the post of D.G.C./A.D.G.C.(Crl.). Such professional engagement can be terminated on either side without notice and without assigning any reason. By holding a post of District Counsel or public prosecutor, no status is conferred on the incumbent. The incumbent has no legal enforceable right as such...The incumbent cannot claim extension or renewal of term of the post held by him."

The Court held thus while dismissing a writ petition filed by one Santosh Kumar Dohrey seeking a mandamus to the State Government for renewal of his term as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal).

The case in brief

It was the case of the petitioner that he was initially, he was engaged by the government to the said post from September 2008 till September 2009. Thereafter, on July 29, 2011, the State government was further engaged for 3 years. Before the expiry of the period of his re-appointment, he submitted an application for renewal on April 17, 2014, with the District Magistrate, Jhansi.

The DM, Jhansi forwarded a letter for his recommendation to the State government, however, no order was passed on the same and vide order dated July 10, 2014, a status quo order was passed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.

Thereafter, on July 30, 2014, the DM directed him to hand over the charge of ADGC (Criminal) purportedly at the behest of a political leader. It was his primary contention in the writ petition that the DM had no authority to relieve him from his post of ADGC (Crl.) since the proposal for renewal for his post was pending with the government.

On the other hand, the Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents opposed the writ petition by contending that the engagement of the petitioner on the post of ADGC (Crl.) was for a limited period and the stipulated period has expired and since the said post is neither public service nor it is permanent in nature, the petitioner has no legal right for his renewal on the post and the petition may be rejected.

High Court's order

Perusing Section 24 of the CrPC and referring to the Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal 2004, the High Court held that the appointment to the posts of D.G.C./A.D.G.C.(Crl.) by the State Government is a professional engagement of an advocate and the same is not a civil post and hence, the appointee does not have any right to renewal or reappointment on the said posts.

Here, it may be noted that in the Johri Mal case (supra), the Top Court had observed that the Legal Remembrancer Manual clearly states that the appointment of a public prosecutor or a district counsel would be professional in nature and the same is beyond any cavil and rightly conceded at the Bar that the holder of an office of the public prosecutor does not hold a civil post. 

Against this backdrop, the Court opined that the petitioner cannot claim an extension or renewal of the term of the post held by him.

"The application of the petitioner for his renewal on the post of A.D.G.C. (Crl.) is pending before the government. Admittedly, the State Government could not take any decision regarding renewal of the post of petitioner as a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Misc. Bench No. 9127 of 2012, Ajay Kumar Sharma and Another Vs. State of U.P. Thr. Prin.Secy.Law/Legal Remembrancer,Lko & Ors., had directed the State Government to maintain status quo as it existed on that date regarding continuance of existing D.G.C./A.D.G.C. (Crl.)," the Court further noted 

Consequently, under the facts and circumstances of the petition and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Johri Mal case, the HC found no ground to issue mandamus to respondents nos.1 and 2 regarding the renewal of the petitioner to the post of A.D.G.C. (Crl.) held by him.

Case title - Santosh Kumar Dohrey vs. Pramukh Sachiv Nyay Evam Vidhi Paramarshi U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 326 [WRIT - C No. - 42430 of 2014]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 326

Click Here To Read/Download Order