BHOLA NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions have been filed by one Bhola Nath Yadav and other by Prabhat Kumar Mukherji who were working as District Government Counsel (Crl.) and Addl. District Government Counsel (Crl.) in the district of Sonbhadra. Being aggrieved against the order of non-renewal of their postings on the designation which they had held, they knocked the door of this Court.

(2.) Bhoia Nath Yadav was initially appointed on the post of A.D.C.C. (Crl.) Sonbhadra on 26.2.1991 and worked as such till 1995. as his term was renewed from time to time. In the year 1995, the post of D.G.C. (Criminal) fell vacant. in pursuance of which he applied for his appointment and he was selected and appointed by the State Government as D.G.C. (Criminal) Sonbhadra on 16.12.1995. On a recommendation being made by the District Judge and the District Magistrate, his term as D.G.C. (Criminal) was renewed by the State Government on 24.6.97. When the process for renewal of the term of the petitioner was again started in the year 1998, the District Judge as well as the District Magistrate recommended the case of the petitioner for renewal by separate papers dated 25.5.98 and 6.2.98 respectively. But his term was not renewed by the State Government. Sri Prabhat Kumar Mukherji was selected and appointed on the post of A.D.G.C. (Criminal) Sonbhadra on 16.12.1995. On 24.6.1997 his term was renewed. Again on 25.5.98 the District Judge recommended the renewal of the term of Sri Prabhat Kumar Mukherji. On 6.6.98 the District Magistrate also recommended the name of Sri Prabhat Kumar Mukherji for renewal. But on 30.4.99 the State Government has refused to renew the term of Sri Prabhat Kumar Mukherji and ordered him to be relieved from the said post.

(3.) Both the petitioners have assailed the order of the Slate Government refusing to renew their terms on account of political bias. They alleged that the State Government wanted to appoint its own men in place of the petitioners. They asserted before this Court that in view of the recommendations which were made by the District Judge as well as District Magistrate, their term ought to have been renewed.