PADAMDHAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M.P. 3216/90, M.P. 3332/90, M.P. 3325/90, M.P. 3084/90, M.P. 3212/90. M.P. 3111/90. M.P. 278/91, M.P. 2913/91 and M.P. 140/91. The present batch of petitions are filed by the Government pleaders/public prosecutors and Additional Govt. Pleaders, Additional Public Prosecutors, declining to extend or renew the term of their respective offices any further by the State of M.P. and other respondents. In this petition a prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus, commanding respondents to continue the petitioners appointment and to quash by a writ of certiorary annexure P. 12 and P. 13 and also restraining the respondents from passing any order of removal and consequential benefits of payment of monthly legal remuneration.

(2.) THE petitioner was enrolled an Advocate in April 1968. He has put in more than 22 years at the Bar. He was appointed as Additional Govt. Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor vide Annexure P.6. and P.7 respectively, on 23.9.1989. A note appended to annexure. P.6 and P.7 states that the appointment shall be upto 28.2.90 or his successor is appointed which -ever is earlier.

(3.) THUS , the controversy arises in this back ground. In the connected petitions the petitioners were cither already prforming their duties as GP/AGP/PP/APP, but were refused renewal and in one or two cases existing appointment was terminated prematurely. The petitioner in the instant petition and other connected petitions have challenged the orders on various grounds were particularly mala -fides and arbilraoiness polical grounds and non -compliance with the requirements of L.D. Manual to which reference will be made later in this order. Strong reliance is placed on the judgment in Shrilekha Vidyarthi V. State of U.P. reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C.537.