UMESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 1.4.2016 issued by the Secretary, Government of M.P., Law & Legislative Department. By the order impugned, respondent No.3 was appointed as Public Prosecutor, Satna and the earlier order dated 15.3.2016 issued in favour of the petitioner was recalled.

(2.) The challenge to the impugned order is that without following the procedure prescribed under Sec. 24 of Crimial P.C. the appointment of respondent no.3 has been made. It is alleged that respondent no.3 is junior to the petitioner as both of them were working on the post of Additional Public Prosecutor and as such, he could not have been appointed as Public Prosecutor. It is contended that no reasons have been assigned in the order impugned requiring cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Public Prosecutor. It is also alleged that District Judge, Satna never forwarded the name of respondent No.3 and yet he has been appointed Public Prosecutor. It was also alleged that no notice was issued to the petitioner or he was afforded any opportunity before cancellation of his appointment. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal AIR 2016 SC 1629.

(3.) Respondents in their separate returns have contested the claim of the petitioner and it was the case of respondents no.1 and 2 that respondent No.3 was working on the post of Additional Public Prosecutor since 19.11.2004 and in support of this contention the order dated 20.10.2004 has been filed as Annexure R/1. Thus, according to the State, the respondent No.3 was senior to the petitioner as Additional Public Prosecutor and has more experience as compared to the petitioner. It was also stated in the return that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 was in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Sec. 24 Crimial P.C. and the panel of names were forwarded to the State Government by the District Magistrate, Satna in consultation with the Sessions Judge, Satna. The said panel was received by the Government on 14.2015. The penal contained the name of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 and the Head of the Department, (Law Secretary) approved the name of petitioner for appointment on 8.2016, pursuant to which the order dated 15.2016 was issued by the Government. It was contended that the appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual and it could be terminated at any point of time without assigning any reason. It was also contended that petitioner failed to submit the declaration as per requirement of Rule 18 of the Department Manual of the Law & Legislative Affairs, Department of Government of M.P., therefore, the appointment order dated 15.2016 was cancelled on 21.2016 and fresh order (impugned) dated 1.4.2016 was issued in favour of respondent no. it was also contended that since the name of the petitioner was not notified in the official gazette, it could have been withdrawn at any time.