AJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Government Counsel (Civil and Criminal), appointed by the Government in subordinate courts in pursuance of power conferred by Section 24 of CrPC read with Legal Remambrancer Manual (L.R. Manual), has been the battle ground in this State of U.P. since almost three decades. The necessary element to make appointment of District Government Counsel keeping in view the public good and interest as a condition precedent as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court vide Mahadev. Vs. Shanti Bhai and others, 1969 2 SCR 422, Mundrika Prasad Singh. Vs. State of Bihar, 1979 4 SCC 701 seems to be obliterated by their stroke of pen with the change of Government with uncared mind to the statutory mandate and constitutional ethos. The State counsel seems to be appointed or removed without following due course of law and mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court flowing from catena of judgments including Km. Shri Lekha Vidyarthi etc. etc. Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1991 1 SCC 212, as well as State of U.P. Versus Johri Mal, and other cases,2004 2 AllCriC 702 and seems to be deliberately ignored on one or the other ground with the assistance of the Office of Legal Remembrancer os the participatory organ.

(2.) Since almost three decades the Office of Principal Secretary (Law) and its associates who are the members of the subordinate judiciary hold the rank of District Judge/Additional District Judge or Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) ordinarily, yield to political pressure in the matter of appointment of District Government Counsel. The observations made by the Division Bench of this court affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case : U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti Vs. State of U.P., 2012 30 LCD 1066, Sadhna Sharma. Vs. State of U.P. and others, delivered by one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh), does not seem to have any impact on the Office of Legal Remambrancer of the State of U.P. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the observations (sub-para (20) of para 248) made by this Court in U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti's case , to quote:-

(3.) Under such scenario, as usual, we have been again confronted with the dispute and the procedure adopted by the Government while considering the renewal and appointment of DGCs in compliance of earlier judgments . It is unfortunate that members of subordinate judiciary, the day they join the Office of Legal Remembrancer, change their attitude and start to function like Government employee ordinary, without adhering to the rules and law and realizing their duty to work as advisory body for the Government with firmness. Writ Petition No.9127 (M/B) of 2012 is taken up as the leading writ petition with the consent of parties counsel.