Non-Renewal Of ADGC Tenure Can Be Subject Matter Of Judicial Scrutiny If Arbitrary Or Is In Violation Of Article 14: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that non-renewal of the tenure of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) (ADGC) can be subject to judicial scrutiny if it is arbitrary or violates Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Court observed that the incumbent cannot claim an extension or renewal of the term of the post held by him.
The Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the District Court directing him to discharge his duties to the District Government Counsel (DGC). The Court emphasized that holding the post of District Counsel or public prosecutor does not confer any legally enforceable right on the incumbent and therefore, he cannot claim an extension or renewal.
The Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I noted, “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 action of State in not renewing the tenure can be subjected to judicial scrutiny inter-alia on the ground that the same is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The incumbent cannot claim extension or renewal of term of the post held by him”.
Advocate Akram Parvez Siddiqui appeared for the Petitioner.
The Petitioner approached the High Court by a Writ Petition, challenging the order of the District Magistrate of Jhansi (Respondent no 4), whereby the Petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of ADGC to DGC, as his employment had expired.
The Court noted that the Petitioner was hired as an ADGC through a government order until September 2 2009, and was reappointed until August 29 2014. In April 2014, he applied for renewal, and the District Magistrate forwarded his application in June with a recommendation from the District Judge. However, the District Magistrate's order later removed him from the position. The High Court's order later suspended this order. The District Magistrate withdrew the order, relieving the petitioner from his position.
The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in the cases of State of U.P. v Ashok Kumar Nigam [(2013) 3 SCC 372], State of U.P. and others v Rakesh Kumar Keshari and another [(2011) 5 SCC 341] and State of U.P. and others v Ajay Kumar Sharma and another, [2015 4 Crimes (SC) 588]. The Bench held that the State Government hires advocates for these positions professionally and are not considered civil posts. Therefore, these positions do not offer the appointee any rights for renewal or reappointment. The appointment can be terminated without notice or reason by either party. The Court noted that holding a position as a District Counsel or public prosecutor does not grant the incumbent any particular status or offer any enforceable legal rights.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Santosh Kumar Dohrey v. Pramukh Sachiv Nyay Evam Vidhi Paramarshi U.P. And 4 Others
