SHANKAR SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Shankar Singh Yadav has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to issue the order of renewal of his appointment as District Counsel (Criminal), Jhansi.

(2.) In short, the petitioner's case may be narrated as follows.

(3.) Petitioner Shankar Singh Yadav was a practising lawyer at Jhansi and keeping in view his performance as a legal practitioner, he was appointed as District Government Counsel (Criminal), hereinafter referred to as the D.G.C, (Criminal), initially for a period of one year with effect from August 16, 1990. However, the said appointment ran into rough weather following a litigation and an order of the High Court directing the Government to maintain status quo. Subsequently on attaining the age of sixty years of the then incumbent, the post of D.G.C. (Criminal) fell vacant and consequently the petitioner was appointed as D.G.C. (Criminal) vide order dated 15.12.1990. He was, however, terminated vide Government order dated 28.1.1992. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4821 (S/B) of 1992 and the High Court vide its judgment of July 8, 1993 quashed the termination order dated 28.1.1992 with a direction to consider the petitioner's application for renewal afresh. Thereafter the petitioner was considered for renewal and his term was initially renewed upto 31st March, 1995 but later upto March 31, 1997. In January, 1997 the petitioner again applied for renewal of his term for another period of three years. The District Magistrate, Jhansi, in consultation with the District Judge, Jhansi, sent his D.O. letter in February, 1997 to the Joint Secretary-cum-Joint Legal Remembrancer. U. P. Government, Lucknow, clearly recommending the case of the petitioner for renewal. The petitioner reliably learnt that his case for renewal was finally approved by the Advisor to the Governor on 20.3.1997 but the same could not be implemented though the District Judge and the District Magistrate found the petitioner's work and conduct to be outstanding. The petitioner always performed his duties with utmost devotion and honesty and he always commanded and still commands his reputation for his integrity. It was on the basis of his performance to the greatest satisfaction of the district administration that his case for renewal was recommended by the district authorities. Despite all that, the matter of petitioner's renewal remained pending for long. The reason for withholding the petitioner's renewal, as was reliably learnt by him, was a complaint by the Convenor of the District Bahujan Samaj Party, Jhansi, who wrote a letter to the Chief Minister making wild allegations and recommending cancellation of the petitioner's renewal. If any, in his letter, the Convenor of the aforesaid party had also recommended for appointment of one Rati Ram Verma as the D.G.C. (Criminal). Not only this, but a Minister of the State also by addressing a letter to the then Chief Minister made identical recommendation as was made by the Convenor of the Bahujan Samaj Party. In this background, the petitioner had reasons to apprehend that his order for renewal had been withheld despite its approval by the Governor's Advisor. Feeling aggrieved and being constraint of the above circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for the writ of mandamus as Indicated earlier.