ANIL KUMAR RATHOR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is in a series of petitions that highlight the malady that exists in the State while making appointments to the sensitive post of District Government Counsel (hereinafter referred to as 'DGC'), in the present case DGC (Criminal) at District Budaun. Although this Court has delivered extensive judgements in Writ - C No. 4794 of 2019 (Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and 17 Others) and Writ - C No. 4622 of 2019 (Pushpendra Kumar vs. and 3 others), there appears to be no change in the manner of appointments being carried out by the State Government. No efforts are being undertaken by the State Government to rectify the manner in which appointments are made to the post of DGC, despite a clear mandate of this Court in the above referred judgements which in turn are based on the dictum of the Supreme Court.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition arise as under:

(3.) In the year 2014, an advertisement was issued inviting applications from eligible practicing lawyers for being considered for appointment as DGC (Criminal) at Budaun. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner along with other applicants, applied for being considered. The District & Sessions Judge, Budaun recommended the names of three applicants for being considered for appointment, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial no. 1. It is stated that the recommendation by the District Judge was forwarded to the District Magistrate on 21.7.2014. It is averred in the petition that the District Magistrate, Budaun, overlooking the recommendation of District Judge, recommended four names to the State Government, this recommendation being different from the recommendation made by District Judge and the Law Secretary. In terms of the recommendation made by the District Magistrate, one Jawahar Singh Yadav was appointed as DGC (Criminal), Budaun vide order dated 22.9.2016.