Renewal of DGC Cannot Be Denied Without Giving Reasons: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has quashed an Order of the Government by which the renewal of two District Government Counsels was refused, though there was positive recommendation of District Judge.

It was pleaded before the Court that that the order impugned does not assign any reason for refusing to renew the term of the petitioners. The State Government cannot act in an unfair and unreasonable manner. Even in the matters of contractual appointment the provisions of the LR Manual should have been followed.

Read Also

A Bench of Hon’ble Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Justice Prakash Padia referred to the following Judgments :

  1. AIR 1991 SC 537 Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P. and others,
  2. Virendra Pal Singh Rana Vs. State of U.P. and others 2003 (52) ALR 302
  3. State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Nigam (2013) 3 SCC 372
  4. State of Punjab and another Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and others (2016) 6 SCC 1

and observed that one thing is clear that no lawyer has any vested right to be reappointed as DGC, even though there is positive recommendation of the District Judge.

But the Court relying upon various Judgments held that right to fair consideration is a fundamental right, which cannot be denied to DGC seeking renewal of engagement

Following are the Judgments Referred by Court:

  1. Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union,reported in 1971(1) AIIER 1148
  2. Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC)
  3. E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 3
  4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in (1978) 2 SCR 621,
  5. Ramana Shetty v. International Airport Authority reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489
  6. D.S. Nakra v. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305,
  7. Dwarkadas Marfatia v. Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay (1989) 3 SCC 293,
  8. Som Raj & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 653,
  9. Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 746 and Sharma
  10. Transport v. Government of A.P & Ors. Reported in (2002) 2 SCC 188

The Allahabad High Court from the perusal of records and Affidavit of the Government found that impugned order does not record any such satisfaction and the entitlement of the petitioners does not appear to have been considered in the light of the provisions of Legal Remembrancer’s Manual as also the decisions referred to herein-above.

Accordingly the order refusing to renew has been quashed and the matter has been remanded for fresh consideration in the light of observations made in the Judgment as well as the provisions of Legal Remembrancer’s Manual

Date of Judgment: 08.12.2020

Case No: WRIT – C No. – 11411 of 2020

Title: Bindu Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Bhushan Singhal,Md. Aman Khan

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Download Law Trend App

Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles