GHANSHYAM KISHOR BAJPAYEE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy regarding the appointments, renewal and removal of the District Government Counsel (hereinafter referred to as D.G.C. in short) has been the subject matter of several writ petitions over the last two decades and the reason is not far to see. In the last 20 years or so, the Government has changed hands half a dozen times. Whenever a Government changes or a new Government takes over, an effort is made to appoint Government counsel of their own choice. The appointments are not made on merit, but on the basis of political affiliations. While appointing their own, the new Government generally cancels the appointment or refuses to renew the appointment of the existing D.G.C. This has developed into an unhealthy practice and, time and again, this Court had been directing that meritorious appointments should be made and that the appointments should not be made on the basis of political affiliation or on the basis of caste or creed. The stand now taken by the Government is that the engagement of the Government counsel by previous Government was made on political and extraneous considerations and therefore, the engagement of these persons is no longer desirable. This may be true, but can this be used as a lever to remove all the DGCs en masse on the sole ground of political affiliations? In our view, every new Government has to tread cautiously. The Government has to examine each and every case individually and if after an enquiry, it is found that the person so engaged was politically affiliated, it may, in that case, cancel or refuse to renew his appointment. But, in no case, the renewal, cancellation or refusal to renew an appointment can be made on extraneous considerations. Each and every case has to be dealt with on merit.

(2.) In State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, 2004 (4) SCC 714, the Supreme Court held :

(3.) It has been observed that the appointments of DGCs are not being renewed by not following the procedure laid down In the L.R. Manual and in most cases a perfunctory exercise is made in order to give legitimacy to the action taken. The Supreme Court in Johri Mal's case (supra) held :