Case: Harpal Singh Chauhan and Othersv. State of Uttar Pradesh,. Sarvesh Sharma and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

the District Magistrate are required to consult and discuss the names of the persons fit to be included in the panel and to include such names in the panel. The expressions panel of names of persons, do not mean that some names are to be suggested by the Sessions Judge and some comments are to be made, in respect of those names by the District Magistrate, without proper consultation and discussion over such names. The statutory mandate ought to have been complied with by the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge in its true spirit. In the facts of the present case, no such panel appears to have been prepared by the District Magistrate in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 24. As Section 24 of the Code does not speak about extension or renewal of the term of the person as appointed, the same procedure, as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code, has to be followed. In the present case the District Magistrate, instead of having a effective and real consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, Simply made some vague and general comments against the appellants, which cannot be held to be the compliance of the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 24 15. In the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra), this Court was not concerned with the question regarding the extension/renewal of the terms of the Government Counsel. The primary question which was examined by this Court in that case, was as to whether it was open to the State Government by the impugned circular dated February 6, 1990, to terminate appointments of all the Government Counsel in the different districts of the State, by an omnibus order, even though, those appointment were all individual, It was held that any such exercise of power by the State Government cannot satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution and, as such, was unreasonable and arbitrary. In that connection reference was made to the manual aforesaid and it was pointed out that the said Manual has laid down detailed procedure for appointment, termination and renewal of the tenure of the District Government Counsel. It was pointed out, that different paragraphs of the Manual require, first to consider the existing incumbents for extension and renewal of their tenure and to take steps for fresh appointment in their place, if the existing incumbents were not found suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of the renewal 16. As already mentioned above, S. 24 of the Code does not speak about the extension or renewal of the term of the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor. But after the expiry of the term of the appointment of persons concerned, it requires the same statutory exercise, in which either new persons are appointed or those who have been working as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, are again appointed by the State Government, for a fresh term. The procedure prescribed in the Manual - to the extent - it is not in conflict with the provisions of Section 24, shall be deemed to be supplementing the statutory provisions. But merely because there is a provision for extension or renewal of the term, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right 17. It is true that none of the appellants can claim, as a matter of right, that their terms should have been extended or that they should be appointed against the existing vacancies, but, certainly, they can make a grievance that either they have not received the fair treatment by the appointing authority or that the procedure prescribed in the Code and in the Manual aforesaid, have not been followed. While exercising the power of judicial review even in respect of appointment of members of the legal profession as District Government Counsel, the Court can examine whether there was any infirmity in the decision making process. Of course while doing so, the Court cannot substitute its own judgment over the final decision taken in respect of selection of persons for those posts. It was said in the case of Chief constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, 1982 3 All The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. * 18. In the facts of the present case, the procedure prescribed by Section 24 of the Code have not been followed by the District Magistrate. There is nothing on the records of the case to show that any panel, as required by sub-section (4) of Section 24, was prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the District & Sessions Judge. The District Magistrate simply made some general comment in respect of the appellants, when the District & Sessions Judge had put them in List A of his recommendation. According to us, this shall not amount to either the compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code or Para 7.06 (2) of the Manual. It appears there has been no effective or real consultation between the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate for preparation of the panel, as contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code 19. The members of the legal profession are required to maintain high standard of legal ethics and dignity of profession. They are not supposed to solicit work or seek mandamus from courts in matters of professional engagements. We have been persuaded to interfere in these matters to a limited extend, as we are satisfied that there is patent infraction of the statutory provisions of the Code. As we are of the view that the District Magistrate has not performed his statutory duty as enjoined by law, the appeals of the appellants have to be allowed

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. In the present case, it appears to be an admitted position that appointments of the appellants as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) is governed by Section 24 of the Code, as well as different paragraphs of Chapter VII of the Manual. It was not disputed on behalf of the State, that appellants shall be deemed to be Additional Public Prosecutors within the meaning of Section 24 of the Code, although in the order of appointment they have been designated as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal). The procedure prescribed in the Manual can be observed and followed as supplemental to the provisions of Section 24 of the Code. Needless to say that, if there is any conflict, then Section 24 of the Code being statutory in nature will override the procedure prescribed in the manual. The relevant part of Section 24 is as such :-(3) For every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the districtProvided that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may be appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor as the case may be for another district(4) The District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion, fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district(5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears on the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4)11. The Code prescribes the procedure for appointment of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor, for the High Court and the District Courts by the State Government. The framers of the Code, were conscious of the fact, that the Public Prosecutor and the Additional Public Prosecutor have an important role, while prosecuting, on behalf of the State, accused persons, who are alleged to have committed one or the other offence. Because of that, provisions have been made for their selection in the Code. It is for the Sessions Judge to assess the merit and professional conduct of the persons recommended for such appointments and the District Magistrate to express his opinion on the suitability of persons so recommended, from the administrative point to view. Sub-section (5) of Section 24 provides that no person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4). The aforesaid section requires an effective and real consultation between the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate, about the merit and suitability of person to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor. That is why it requires, a panel of names of person, to be prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge. The same is the position so far the Manual is concerned. It enumerates in detail, how for purpose of initial appointment, extension or renewal, the District Judge who is also the Sessions Judge, is to give his estimate of the quality of the work of the Counsel from the judicial stand-point and the District Officer i.e. the District Magistrate is to report about the suitability, of such person, from administrative point of view13. In the present case the District and Sessions Judge strongly recommended extension for the appellants, saying that so far their work and conduct were concerned, the same had been approved. But the District Magistrate, simply said that on the inquiry at his level reputation, professional work, behavior and conduct of the appellants as Government counsel was not found in accordance with the public interest. The quality of the Counsels work has to be judged and assessed by the District & Sessions Judge. The District Magistrate is required to consider the suitability of such person, from the administrative point of view. According to us, in view of the strong recommendation about the quality of the appellants, professional work, the District Magistrate should have applied his mind in consultation with the Sessions Judge, in respect of each individual case, instead of making a general and identical comment against all the appellants14. Apart from the mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 24 is that the District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons. Sub-section (5) of Section 24 prescribes a statutory bar that no person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the District unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4). When sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the Code, speak about preparation of a panel, out of which appointments against the posts of Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor have to be made, then the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate are required to consult and discuss the names of the persons fit to be included in the panel and to include such names in the panel. The expressions panel of names of persons, do not mean that some names are to be suggested by the Sessions Judge and some comments are to be made, in respect of those names by the District Magistrate, without proper consultation and discussion over such names. The statutory mandate ought to have been complied with by the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge in its true spirit. In the facts of the present case, no such panel appears to have been prepared by the District Magistrate in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 24. As Section 24 of the Code does not speak about extension or renewal of the term of the person as appointed, the same procedure, as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code, has to be followed. In the present case the District Magistrate, instead of having a effective and real consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, Simply made some vague and general comments against the appellants, which cannot be held to be the compliance of the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 2415. In the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra), this Court was not concerned with the question regarding the extension/renewal of the terms of the Government Counsel. The primary question which was examined by this Court in that case, was as to whether it was open to the State Government by the impugned circular dated February 6, 1990, to terminate appointments of all the Government Counsel in the different districts of the State, by an omnibus order, even though, those appointment were all individual, It was held that any such exercise of power by the State Government cannot satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution and, as such, was unreasonable and arbitrary. In that connection reference was made to the manual aforesaid and it was pointed out that the said Manual has laid down detailed procedure for appointment, termination and renewal of the tenure of the District Government Counsel. It was pointed out, that different paragraphs of the Manual require, first to consider the existing incumbents for extension and renewal of their tenure and to take steps for fresh appointment in their place, if the existing incumbents were not found suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of the renewal16. As already mentioned above, S. 24 of the Code does not speak about the extension or renewal of the term of the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor. But after the expiry of the term of the appointment of persons concerned, it requires the same statutory exercise, in which either new persons are appointed or those who have been working as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, are again appointed by the State Government, for a fresh term. The procedure prescribed in the Manual - to the extent - it is not in conflict with the provisions of Section 24, shall be deemed to be supplementing the statutory provisions. But merely because there is a provision for extension or renewal of the term, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right17. It is true that none of the appellants can claim, as a matter of right, that their terms should have been extended or that they should be appointed against the existing vacancies, but, certainly, they can make a grievance that either they have not received the fair treatment by the appointing authority or that the procedure prescribed in the Code and in the Manual aforesaid, have not been followed. While exercising the power of judicial review even in respect of appointment of members of the legal profession as District Government Counsel, the Court can examine whether there was any infirmity in the decision making process. Of course while doing so, the Court cannot substitute its own judgment over the final decision taken in respect of selection of persons for those posts. It was said in the case of Chief constable of theNorth Wales Police v. Evans, 1982 3 AllThe purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. *18. In the facts of the present case, the procedure prescribed by Section 24 of the Code have not been followed by the District Magistrate. There is nothing on the records of the case to show that any panel, as required by sub-section (4) of Section 24, was prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the District & Sessions Judge. The District Magistrate simply made some general comment in respect of the appellants, when the District & Sessions Judge had put them in List A of his recommendation. According to us, this shall not amount to either the compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code or Para 7.06 (2) of the Manual. It appears there has been no effective or real consultation between the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate for preparation of the panel, as contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code