MEWA LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner, a practicing advocate belonging to Scheduled Caste, has instituted this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire process for appointment to the post of District Government Counsel (Revenue) (in short D.G.C. (R) in District Chandauli pursuant to the notice (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and a writ, order or direction commanding respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate the process of appointment to the post of D.G.C. (Revenue) afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the provision of Uttar Pradesh (Reservation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (in short U. P. Act 4 of 1994).

(2.) THE question of paramount importance that has been raised in this writ petition is as to whether the provisions of U. P. Act 4 of 1994 will be applicable in relation to District Government counsel. It has been urged by Shri Sita Ram Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that services and posts of Government counsels, irrespective of their nomenclature, come within the purview of "Public Services and Posts" as defined in Section 2 (c) of U. P. Act 4 of 1994 and, therefore, the respondents are under legal obligation to make appointments to the 'services and posts' of Government counsels in accordance with the provision of the said Act. THE impugned notice (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), it has been submitted by the learned counsel, does not conform to the requirement of Section 3 of U. P. Act 4 of 1994 and is, therefore, illegal and void and the appointment, if made pursuant thereto, would attract the penal provision contained in Section 5 of the U. P. Act 4 of 1994. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri Vishwa Jyoti Sahai, the learned standing counsel, that the provisions of U. P. Act 4 of 1994 have no application in relation to appointments to the posts of Government counsel whatever may be their nomenclature-whether District Government counsel, Additional District Government Counsel in the District Courts, and Standing Counsel or Additional Government Advocates in the High Court. THE submission is that the post of 'Shaskeeya Adhivakta' of any description does not come within the purview of "Public Services and Posts" as defined under Section 2 (c) of the U. P. Act 4 of 1994. It has been further submitted that the appointment on the posts of 'Shaskeeya Adhivakta' being contractual in nature is not covered by the law of reservation as visualized by the U. P. Act 4 of 1994. Reliance is placed on Clause 3 of Para 7.06 of Legal Remembrancer's Manual, 1975, which reads as under :

(3.) IN case of K. C. Sood v. S. G. Gudimani, 1981 (2) Cr LJ 1179, the Delhi High Court in relation to the status of Government pleader held as under :