Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the engagement of petitioner as Assistant Prosecution Officer (Panel Advocate) has been discontinued, allegedly prematurely; a further writ of mandamus is sought directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer (Panel Advocate) in view of order dated 21.11.2023 passed by respondent no.1.

Case of petitioner is that he was earlier engaged as Assistant Prosecution Officer (Panel Advocate) in District Almora vide order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure No.2). He was engaged for a period of one year or till the regular Assistant Prosecution Officers are appointed in the district, whichever is earlier. The tenure of petitioner was further extended by order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure No.3) for a further period of one year with effect from 04.10.2023 or till regularly selected Assistant Prosecution Officers are engaged, whichever is earlier.

According to petitioner, in view of extension, his tenure would come to an end on 04.10.2024 or till regularly selected Assistant Prosecution Officer in the district are appointed.

From the record, it appears that vide order dated 05.02.2024, four Assistant Prosecution Officers have been appointed in the district and pursuant to such regular selection and appointment of Assistant Prosecution Officers, services of petitioner as Assistant Prosecution Officer (Panel Advocate) have come to an end. Petitioner has challenged the said action of respondents by filing the present petition.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner vehemently that the tenure of petitioner was extended by the State Government under the hands of Principal Secretary (Law) and Legal Remembrancer, vide order dated 21.11.2023, and, therefore, it is only the State which can curtail the tenure of petitioner.

It is further submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that the Senior Prosecution Officer has no authority to choose as to who among the three Assistant Prosecution Officer (Panel Advocate) would be ousted on the joining of regularly selected candidates.

Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that engagement as well as the extension of petitioner was for a period of one year, subject to appointment of regularly selected Assistant Prosecution Officer in the district, whichever is earlier. Since four persons have been appointed as Assistant Prosecution Officer, therefore, term of petitioner has rightly been brought to an end by the impugned order.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any force in the submission made by learned Counsel for petitioner simply for the reason that the regularly selected Assistant Prosecution Officers have been appointed in the district, consequent upon which, the right of petitioner has come to an end automatically, as his right was subject to that condition since beginning.

So far as the argument of learned Counsel for petitioner is concerned that Senior Prosecution Officer has no power to pass such an order, the same is also bereft of any merit for the reason that it is the Senior Prosecution Officer who is authorized and responsible for discharge of administration of Prosecution Office in the district.

The Court finds no ground to interfere in the matter. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of as such.