Allahabad High Court
Sushil Kumar Sirohi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 September, 2019
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24115 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Sirohi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P.
2. Petitioner is claiming empanelment in Government Advocate stating that recommendation has already been made in his favour by District Magistrate, Meerut but Government has not accepted the same and has now proceeded to start fresh procedure for empanelment by notification dated 12.07.2019 which states that fresh panel shall be prepared and also clarified certain conditions which are to be considered before making recommendations for empanelment of Advocate. Neither petitioner has been empanelled for any specific matter nor he has any existing right at this stage.
3. Even otherwise, petitioner has no legal or otherwise right to claim his empanelment or appointment as an Advocate for State or as a Government Advocate. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. 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.
7. In the present case, the mere fact that recommendation was made to Government will not confer any right upon petitioner to claim a direction to Government to accept that recommendation and not to proceed afresh for empanelment of Advocate as Government counsel. Neither petitioner has any existing right nor a vested right which can be enforced by granting relief as prayed in the present writ petition.
8. In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.9.2019 Siddhant Sahu