Appointment of lawyer as Government Advocate is professional engagement by State Government and Additional Public Prosecutor/AGP doesn’t hold “civil post”.

Appointment of lawyer as Government Advocate is professional engagement by  State Government and Additional Public Prosecutor/AGP doesn’t hold “civil post”.

1. The petitioners were appointed by the State Government on the post of Additional Public Prosecutor/ Additional Government Pleader by order dated 10.01.2012 (Annexure P/2) for a period of one year on probation or till attaining the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier, terminable with one month’s notice by either party. Services of the petitioners were not confirmed by express order of the State Government in terms of Paragraph 17 of the Chhattisgarh Law Department Manual (hereinafter referred to as “the Manual”), holding the petitioners services to be satisfactory. However, they were allowed to continue till appointment of respondent No. 2 and 3 i.e. 07.03.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition on 16.03.2015 holding that order dated 28th June, 2014 (Annexure P/1) by which the State Government requisitioned the names of eligible advocates for appointment of Additional Government Pleader/Additional Public Prosecutor and order appointing respondent No. 2 and 3 on the post of Additional Public Prosecutor are unsustainable and bad in law, as the petitioners tenure would end in the month of January, 2015 as their probation period is one year and further three years period is provided in Paragraph 18 of the Manual, therefore, order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be set-aside.

2. Return has been filed by the respondent No.1/State as well as respondents No.2 and 3 opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.

3. Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since express order not confirming the services of the petitioners was not passed by the State Government, therefore, the petitioners deemed to have been confirmed on the said post upon expiry of one year and therefore, by virtue of the provisions contained in Paragraph 18 of the Manual, they will hold the post for a total period of four years and as such, they are entitled to continue till 9th January, 2016 and impugned order/ communication dated 28th June, 2014 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 07.03.2015 (Annexure P/2) deserve to be quashed.

4. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State would submit that the petitioners were appointed only for a period of one year, they were not confirmed on the said post and by virtue of Paragraph 18 of the Manual, they were allowed to continue till the respondents No.2 and 3 were appointed and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.