BAJRANG LAL JAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents on the following grounds : 1. Whether the sweeping changes could be made throughout the State in respect of appointment of Public Prosecutors on account of change of Government when such appointment is not a political appointment? 2. Whether the District Magistrate could delete the name of any candidate who has been recommended by the District Judge and what weightage has to be in respect of the recommendations of the District Judge? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled for a notice of one month before his services could be terminated ? 4.Whether the action of the respondents in giving appointment to Shri Kunj Behari Lal Agrawal, respondent No. 3 as Public Prosecutor is illegal and arbitrary ? .

(2.) BRIEF facts of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Rule 12 and 14 of the Law & Judicial Department Manual on 7.07.1990 and the tenure was up to 31st December 1990. The term of appointment was further extended till further orders on 3.01.1991. It is alleged that thereafter no orders were passed but with the dismissal of the elected Government, the present Governor sent wireless message on 21.01.1993 to the District Magistrate, Swaimadhopur for sending the panel of lawyers for appointment of Public Prosecutors for Sawaimadhopur district. It is alleged that the said message was sent practically to all the District Magistrates of the entire State. The District Magistrate on the basis of the said wireless message have written a letter to the District & Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur for sending the names of lawyers on 21.01.1993. The list of lawyers which was sent by the Sessions Judge included the name of the petitioner and the said panel as prepared by him is alleged to have been forwarded on 24.02.1993. The petitioner has claimed that he was at serial No. 1 in the panel. The District Collector, Sawaimadhopur excluded the name of the petitioner and sent a separate panel of lawyers without any further consultation with the District & Sessions Judge. The panel sent by the District Magistrate was received by the Government on 26.01.1993 and this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner in the 1st week of March, 1993.

(3.) IN accordance with the provisions of. Rule 13 of the said Manual, no person can be appointed as Public Prosecutor unless he agrees in writing to take no part in politics during his tenure of appointment and gives a declaration in writing that he is free of incumbrances. This provision makes it clear that the appointment of Public Prosecutor is not on the basis of political ideology. It is the merit of the practising advocates besides his integrity, capability, character, reputation and the like and, therefore, the appointment which has once been made cannot be cancelled without following the procedure of law. IN the present case, the appointment was given for six months and threafter it was extended till further orders. This shows that in accordance with Rule 14 of the Manual, the petitioner was on probation. Power has been given to the State Government to extend the period of probation for sufficient reasons. The order dated 3.1. 1991 by which the term of appointment of the petitioner was extended till further order cannot be considered to be an order confirming the petitioner on the post and giving him permanent appointment. Rule 15 of the Manual provides that the Public Prosecutor can be appointed for a period of 3 years including the period of probation and the may be reappointed for further period not exceeding 3 years at a time and ordinarily no person will be appointed as Public Prosecutor after he attains the age of 60 years or continued in that office after he attains that age. For the purpose of confirmation after the period of 3 years, a satisfactory report has to be sent under rule 14 for the satisfactory performance and unless he is confirmed, he continues on probation. If the services are unsatisfactory or the proposed period is not extended, the services could be terminated.1 IN the present matter, the petitioner was appointed on 7.07.1990 and even if this is being taken into consideration the period of 3 years, which is the term of office in accordance with rule 15 had expired and unless there is re-appointment the petitioner has no right. Besides this, Rule 16 confers powers on the Government to dispense with the services at any time after giving one month's notice. This one month's notice is required where a person is confirmed and since the petitioner was not a confirmed Public Prosecutor, the requirement of one month's notice is not applicable to him. He was only on probation and the services could be terminated without notice if his services are unsatisfactory or if the period of probation is not extended. It is a case where the period of probation is not extended and in terms of Rule 14 the services of the petitioner have rightly been terminated.