RAJESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition being aggrieved by an order dated 3-3-2005 by which appointment of the petitioner as a Special Public Prosecutor made vide Annexure P-2, dated 27th November, 2002 has been terminated without assigning any reason.

(2.) PETITIONER is an Advocate practising in the District Datia since 1988. It is the case of the petitioner that considering his performance and ability, the District Magistrate and the District Judge, Datia recommended his case for appointment as Special Public Prosecutor and after evaluating his merit and suitability vide order (Annexure P-2), dated 27th November, 2002, he has been appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor for a period of three years. In the quarterly meeting held by the District Magistrate and the District Judge moni-toring the work and performance of various officers, working of the petitioner was appreciated and there was no complaint against the petitioner and in an arbitrary manner, appointment of the petitioner has been terminated without assigning any reason. It is the case of the petitioner that only because the government has changed, on political consideration, his appointment has been cancelled.

(3.) SHRI V. K. Bharadwaj, learned Counsel argued that termination of the appointment of the petitioner made when there was no complaint and without disclosing any reason is unsustainable. Inviting my attention to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of u. P. , AIR 1991 SC 537, followed in another judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. and another Vs. Johri Mal, 2004 AIR SCW 3888 and a recent judgment by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Tiwari alias Raju Vs. State of M. P. and others, 2005 (3) M. P. H. T. 69 = 2005 (1) MPU 204, it was argued by Shri Bharadwaj that the order impugned is unsustainable.