SITA RAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to Sri Krishna Ji Khare learned counsel for the petitioner, the real prayer of the petitioner is to quash the communication made by the Joint Secretary and Joint Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh to the District Magistrate, Ghazipur informing him that he has been directed to communicate that in regard to his recommendation made under clause 7.08 of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual it has been decided after through thinking that the services of Sri Sita Ram Yadav ( the petitioner ) as Assistant District Government Counsel (Civil) will not be extended and, thus, Sri Yadav be relivered immediately (as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ petitioner).

(2.) Sri Khare, with reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi versus State of U.P. and others (1990) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1174, contended that the order impugned is arbitrary inasmuch as the recommendations made by the District Magistrate and the District Judge concerned were based on performance of the petitioner which were binding on the State.

(3.) We regret in not finding any substance in the contention. It is always open for the State as a litigant to engage a councel of his choice. Merely because the District Magistrate or District Judge has made recommendations for continuance of the held that that recommendation is binding on the state. Mr. Khare could not locate his fingers to such a ratio decidendi in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi's case supra to support his submissions. We are of the definite view that a councel cannot thrust on a litigant to his freedom of speech and there is no question of violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner of his freedom of speech and expression. We do not find that earlier any interim releif was also granted to the petitioner.