Dalip Singh And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.

The jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been invoked seeking a direction to quash the order dated 14.09.2018, and the advertisement dated 09.10.2018; for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue as a Panel Lawyer till appointment is made to the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer; and for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to renew the term of the petitioners as a Panel Lawyer as per the provisions of the L.R. Manual, and to pay them regular remunerations.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners were panel lawyers for the District Court, Pithoragarh; their term was for one year from 20.07.2016 and had come to an end on 20.07.2017; the Government had decided not to renew the terms of the present petitioners, and had adopted a procedure for fresh appointment of Assistant Prosecution Officers / Panel Lawyers vide order dated 9. 10.2018; the petitioners have not been able to show as to what provision of law had been violated by the Government in taking the present recourse, i.e. in not renewing the term of the petitioners, and in initiating a fresh appointment procedure; the only submission of the petitioners was that, though their case had been recommended by the District Magistrate / District Judge, they were not being considered; and unless and until the procedure, adopted by the Government, was said to be unfair or violative of the law, no interference was justified. The writ petition was, consequently, dismissed.

Sri Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the appellants, would fairly state that the State Government has already initiated steps to fill up all these posts on a regular basis. He would, however, contend that till a regular process of selection is made, the appellants, who were all appointed as Panel Lawyers, for a period of one year should be continued in service; more so, as nothing adverse has been recorded against them, nor is it the case of the State Government that they had failed to discharge their duties as Panel Lawyers, during the year in which they were engaged.

The L. R. Manual is not referable to any Statute. Even otherwise, no specific provision of the L.R. Manual has been shown to have been violated by the respondents justifying interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are informed that even for appointment as a panel lawyer, for a duration of one year, recommendations are called for from the District Judge concerned. The appellants were also appointed only by following such a procedure. Their appointment order, itself, explicitly states that they were being engaged only for a one year period.

Sri Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that calling for recommendations from the District Judge all over again is wholly unnecessary as the appellants are discharging their functions effectively; and their names were already recommended both by the District Judge and by the District Magistrate.

We must express our inability to agree with contention of Sri Lalit Samant, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The process of selection requires the District Judge to make recommendations and the District Magistrate to, then, consider such recommendations and forward them to the State Government. It is for the Government to decide whether or not to accept the recommendations, and make appointments in terms thereof. That does not mean that the Government is obligated to, invariably, accept such recommendations in each and every case. It is always open to it, if it considers it necessary, to call for recommendations afresh. Calling for the recommendations afresh from the District Judge who, in turn, again examines the competence of various advocates working in the District Court before making fresh recommendations, is undoubtedly a fair mode of selection of Penal Lawyer for a limited duration, till regular selections are made through the Public Service Commission.

As Shri Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the appellants, himself admits that a regular process of selection, through the Public Service Commission, has already commenced, we see no reason to interdict the action of the respondents in calling for fresh recommendations from the District Judge for appointment of Panel Lawyers for a duration of one year.

Viewed from any angle, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.