Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/472/2015 on 3 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 472 of 2015
BETWEEN:
Ghananand Barthwal. ..........Petitioner
(There is no representation for the petitioner)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others. ......Respondents
(By Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs:-
"A. To issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order passed by respondent no.1 being letter
no. 06-Char-L(1)/XXXVI (1)/2015-42G/2001
Vol- II TC, dated 10-02-2015 (Annexure no.6
to the petition).
B. To issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.1 to permit the petitioner to
perform his duties as District Government
Counsel (Civil), Nainital in view of the note
clause of sub clause 6 of Clause 7.08 read
with Clause 7.13 of the Legal Remembrance's
Manual."
2. Petitioner was engaged as District
Government Counsel (Civil) (hereinafter referred to as
"DGC (Civil)"). Since petitioner was completing 62
years of age, which is the age of superannuation for
Government Counsels, therefore, Secretary, Law
Department asked District Magistrate, Naintal vide
letter dated 10.02.2015 to prepare a Panel of three
Lawyers and send the same to the State Government,
with comments of the District Judge. In the said
letter, it is mentioned that this exercise is undertaken
as the present incumbent on the post of DGC (Civil)
has attained age of superannuation. Engagement of
DGC (Civil) is done as per the provisions contained in
Legal Remembrance's Manual (hereinafter referred to
as "L.R. Manual"), which is reproduced in para no.7 of
the writ petition.
3. Clause 7.13 of the L.R. Manual, as
reproduced in the writ petition, provides that age of
superannuation of a Government Advocate would be
62 years and ordinarily there would be no renewal of
term after age of 62 years, however, on fulfillment of
certain conditions, one can be considered for
appointment up to the age of 65 years. It is thus
apparent that no one can be permitted to hold the
Office of DGC (Civil), after completing 65 years of
age.
4. According to the petitioner, he had applied
for reappointment, in terms of Clause 7.13 of the L.R.
Manual, therefore, the State Government was under a
duty to consider his request. Petitioner has challenged
inter departmental communication dated 10.02.2015
issued by Law Secretary. By the request made to
District Magistrate, no prejudice was caused to
petitioner as his engagement as DGC (Civil), was not
terminated. Moreover renewal of professional
engagement cannot be claimed as a matter of right,
that too after completing age of superannuation.
Although, L.R. Manual permits for reappointment of a
person upon completing age of 62 years, however it is
circumscribed by certain conditions, therefore, such
reappointment also cannot be claimed as a right.
5. A Co-ordinate Bench had passed an interim
order on 26.02.2015 and more than six years have
gone by after passing of the interim order. Petitioner
himself has admitted in the writ petition that
engagement as D.G.C. (Civil) after completing 65
years of age, is not permissible. Petitioner had
completed 62 years in the year 2015, therefore, he
must have completed 65 years of age by now.
6. In such view of the matter, the relief as
claimed by the petitioner does not survive.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
as infructuous. Interim order dated 26.02.2015 is
vacated.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
