GEET KUMAR TALESARA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Udaipur (Rajasthan). The respondent-Department vide order dtd. 9/7/2019 has engaged the petitioner as an Additional Public Prosecutor and Government Counsel at Udaipur. The respondent vide letters dtd. 26/8/2021 and 9/9/2021 issued to the petitioner called for a detailed clarification (alongwith certain documents) from him in relation to the petitioner's annual performance, as Additional Public Prosecutor and Government Counsel; the same was replied by the petitioner. Yet vide another letter dtd. 20/10/2021, the petitioner was called upon to furnish the clarification.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 19 (2) of the Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999, "the Government may at any time and without assigning any reason dispense with services of a Public Prosecutor after giving him one month's notice or one month's remuneration in lieu thereof.". Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned action of the respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary.