BADRI VISHAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ appeal cogency and substantiality of the order dated 25-10-2005 passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 4753/2004 has been called in question.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details the facts which are obligatory to be uncurtained are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') was appointed as an Additional Government Pleader-cum-Assistant Public Prosecutor for Begumganj, district Raisen and while functioning in the said post the third respondent came to be appointed as Additional Government pleader-cum-Assistant Public Prosecutor by order dated 6-10-2004 passed by the respondent State. The said appointment was assailed by the petitioner invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under art. 226 of the Constitution of India contending, inter alia, that the name of the respondent No. 3 was not recommended by the District Judge, Raisen for his appointment; that the District Magistrate had sent the names to the State Government without recommendation of the District Judge; that the respondent No. 1 without considering the factum that there had been no recommendation in respect of respondent No. 3 appointed him to the post in question which suffers from non-compliance of the provisions engrafted under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr. P. C. ') and Rule 15 of the Law Department manual. It was further contended before the learned Single Judge that prior to the appointment of the respondent No. 3 the appellant was appointed on 19-8-2004 but the same was cancelled as per order contained in Annexure P-5 to the writ petition and within a short span of five weeks, the respondent No. 3 was appointed. The decision rendered in the case of State of U. P. v. Johri mal, 2004 AIR SCW 3888 was commended before the learned single Judge.

(3.) THE stand and instance of the appellant was resisted before the learned single judge by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the name of the third respondent was forwarded and recommended by the district Judge and thereafter the District magistrate had forwarded the list and on following due procedure the appointment was made. It was further put forth that when the appellant was appointed on 19-8-2004 the name of the respondent No. 3 was not recommended in consultation with the District Judge but the State Government included his name and he was appointed and because of this impropriety and illegality the order was cancelled and the Collector was directed to furnish a fresh list of suitable counsel and thereafter the respondent No. 2 in consultation with the District Judge forwarded the name of the respondent No. 3 along with other candidates and the name of the respondent No. 3 was found more suitable and eventually he was appointed on the post in question. It was further pleaded that the District Magistrate has the authority and has been empowered to recommend the names of suitable counsel under Section 24 of the Cr. P. C. and there having been no violation of any of the postulates engrafted therein or stipulation in the Law Department manual there was no warrant of interference in the matter of appointment.