Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.5250 of 2017
1
Jabalpur, Dated 13.04.2018
Shri Gyanendra Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri S.M. Lal, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by a communication dated 21.03.2017 by which the petitioner's representation against non- inclusion of his name in the panel forwarded by the District Judge for appointment on the post of Public Prosecutor has been rejected.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the respondent No.5 has been included and forwarded by the respondents-authorities in the panel for appointment on the post of Public Prosecutor ignoring the claim of the petitioner, whereas a criminal case was registered against the respondent No.5 in which he was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. It is submitted that on the other hand, the petitioner was also prosecuted in a criminal case, but was granted a clean acquittal and in such circumstances, comparatively, the petitioner is more meritorious than THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5250 of 2017 2 the respondent No.5, therefore, his name should have been included in the panel.
The respondent No.5 has filed a reply and it is stated that the respondent No.5 has been acquitted on merits of the case and not on the basis of benefit of doubt, and that the name of all the persons concerned including that of the petitioner were duly considered and thereafter a panel was forwarded by the District Judge in accordance with law and in such circumstances, no case is made out by the petitioner for interference.
The State has reiterated the stand taken by the private respondent.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
From a perusal of the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the respondent No.5 on the post of Public Prosecutor, which apparently has been made and the respondent No.5 is continuing on the said post. The only challenge in the present petition is to an order rejecting the petitioner's representation seeking reconsideration of his claim for inclusion of his name in the panel.
The respondents in the return filed by them have stated that the cases of the persons concerned were considered, including that of the petitioner, and the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5250 of 2017 3 respondent No.5 having been found to be more suitable, was recommended for appointment and has thereafter been appointed on the post of Public Prosecutor. The respondents have also stated that the details in respect of the criminal cases against the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 were duly taken into consideration and the authorities finding that the respondent No.5 was more suitable have granted him appointment on the post of Public Prosecutor. The respondents have relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ashutosh Pawar vs. High Court of M.P., W.P.No.5865/2016 dated 02.01.2018 in support of the submissions.
We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of challenge to the appointment of the respondent No.5 and as the respondents have duly considered the claim of the petitioner and included the name of the respondent No.5 in the panel, challenge in the present petition by the petitioner to the rejection of his representation is misconceived, more so, as the respondent authorities were only bound to consider the claim of all the applicants, but is not bound to recommend the name of each and every applicant who applied for appointment on the post of Public Prosecutor. The respondents - authorities having duly THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5250 of 2017 4 considered the application of the petitioner and having found the respondent No.5 to be more suitable, recommended his name and no fault can be found with the said proceedings. In the circumstances, we do not find any case warranting interference in this petition.
The petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
(R.S. Jha) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
SJ
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Date: 2018.04.13 15:34:34 +05'30'