JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, Manak Chand, Public Prosecutor, filed this writ petition before this Court on 16th July 1990 and prayed therein that the respondents maybe restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner as Public Prosecutor, Ajmer District or, in the alternative not to terminate the services of the petitioner till 30th June, 1993. It was also prayed that a new appointment is made during the intervening period, then the Court should declare that the present Public Prosecutor that who has been appointed vide order dated, 9-2-90 (Annex. 9), shall continue to hold the office of Public Prosecutor till the expiry of his term of appointment. During the intervering period Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya was appointed as Public Prosecutor as such, the writ petition was amended by the present petitioner and further prayer was made that appointment of Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya may be declared illegal and the present petitioner should be allowed to hold the office of Public Prosecutor till 30th June, 1993. 2. State Government issued wireless message to the District Magistrates of 14 districts requesting them to send the panel of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors for the Sessions Courts and Additional Sessions Courts existing in their respective jurisdiction. District Magistrate, Ajmer, forwarded the panel of five persons vide his letter No. 590 dated 10-7-90. It seems that the District Magistrate has not forwarded the recommendations made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer to the State Government. Court wanted to see the recommendation so made by the learned District and Sessions Judge. The recommendations were not available with the State Government as such, time was given to get the copy of the recommendations made by the learned District and Sessions Judge to the Advocate General. District Magistrate, Ajmer vide his letter dated, 26-3-91 forwarded the copy of the recommendations received by him to the Law Department and copy of the same was placed by the Advocate General on record. Learned District & Sessions Judge recommended six names in the panel. The name of Shri Krishna Avtar was deleted from the panel by the District Magistrate for the reasons best known to him. The names of other five persons were recommended. In the recommendations made by the Collector as well as District & Sessions Judge, the name of present petitioner, Manak Chand, as well as the new appointee Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya finds place. The names of other five persons were recommended. In the recommendations made by the Collector as well as District & Sessions Judge, the name of present petitioner, Manak Chand, as well as the new appointee Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya finds place. 3. District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in his panel submitted that Manak Chand is having wide experience of the post of Public Prosecutor and he is performing his duties in a very efficient way and to the utmost satisfaction of the Court. As far as the new appointee Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya is concerned, it was stated that it seems that he is an industrious Advocate of good character and he may be able to perform the duties of the office of Public Prosecutor. Learned District & Sessions Judge in his recommendation also observed about Shri S.K. Bhargava, Shri S.K. Verma and Shri Pratap Kumar that they are senior Advocates and are having vast experience and they are very serious towards the performance of their duties and they are efficient Advocates. 4. State Government without giving notice terminated the services of the petitioner. However, realising the mistake after termination of service, they served one month's notice to the Public Prosecutor, Manak Chand during the pendency of this Writ Petition about the termination of his service. Shri Manak Chand, present petitioner, raised the following issues in his writ petition: "1. Whether the service of the petitioner which were extended upto 30th June 1993 vide order dated, 7th February 1990 (Appex. 9) can be terminated before the expiry of the term without any cause?" 5. Shri B.L. Samdaria, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has also raised the issue that the act of the Government is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide. He has also submitted that the termination order is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that the termination orders are bad in law and principle of audi-alteram-partem has been violated. 6. On behalf of the State Advocate General submitted that the services of the Public Prosecutor can be terminated as it is a matter of confidence between the Advocate and the client. He also submitted that the termination orders are bad in law and principle of audi-alteram-partem has been violated. 6. On behalf of the State Advocate General submitted that the services of the Public Prosecutor can be terminated as it is a matter of confidence between the Advocate and the client. He has also submitted that it is not a malafide act, but, generally, the terms of number of Public Prosecutors were inferring in the year 1990, as such the panel was called for all the persons and some cases in which the term was to expire in 1991 or 1993 were also taken into consideration. 7. Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Law and Judicial Department Manual, 1952, provides that, all appointments of Public Prosecutors shall be made by the Government. It further provides that the Government may call for the recommendation for those posts from the District Magistrate at the District Head-quarters of Sessions Division. District Magistrate shall then consult the District and Sessions Judge demi-officially and submit the latter's opinion along with his own and also a list of pleaders practising in his district direct to Government." In the instant case, from the facts available on record and during the enquiries made it seems that the District Magistrate has not submitted with his opinion the views expressed by the learned District and Sessions Judge to the Government. He only forwarded the panel of lawyers. The list of pleaders practising in his district was also not submitted. 8. Rule 14 of Rules of 1952, provides that every Public Prosecutor shall be considered to be on probation for a period of six months from the date of his taking charge and at the end of that period the District Magistrate shall submit the report through the District and Sessions Judge and Divisional Commissioner to the Government upon his conduct and ability. It further provides that if the Government is of the view that the services are satisfactory then the officer holding the post of Public Prosecutor may be confirmed on that post. 9. Rule 15 provides that the Public Prosecutor shall be appointed for a period of three years including the period of his probation and may be re-appointed for further period not exceeding three years at a time. 9. Rule 15 provides that the Public Prosecutor shall be appointed for a period of three years including the period of his probation and may be re-appointed for further period not exceeding three years at a time. It further provides that ordinarily no person shall be appointed on the post of Public Prosecutor if he attains the age of 60 years or continued in that office after he attains that age. Rule 16 provides that the Government may at any time and without assigning any reason, dispense with the services of a Public Prosecutor after giving him one month's notice. Learned Advocate General has emphasised that from reading this rule it is clear that one month's notice is sufficient for the termination of the services of the Public Prosecutor. 10. In the case of the State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey and Anr., AIR 1957 SC 389 , their Lordships have considered the various provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and the duties of the Public Prosecutor. One of the powers which enables the Public Prosecutor is a discretion to apply to the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution of any person. The consent if granted has to be followed by if discharge or acquittal, as the case may be. Thus, the law does not give any indication as to the grounds on which the Public Prosecutor may make such application. This case only deals with the functions of the Public Prosecutor and is not directly in any way related in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutors. However, one thing can be derived that the Public Prosecutor is holding very important office under a particular statute, namely, the Criminal Procedure Code and he represents the State in the Courts in criminal matters. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited before us the case of State of Rajasthan v. Madan Swarup, AIR 1960 Raj. 138 . Their Lordships were considering whether an Advocate appointed by the State as Government Advocate to conduct its criminal cases and allowed private civil practise can be considered as a person holding the civil post. This Court held that the Advocate is not holding the civil post and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not attracted. 138 . Their Lordships were considering whether an Advocate appointed by the State as Government Advocate to conduct its criminal cases and allowed private civil practise can be considered as a person holding the civil post. This Court held that the Advocate is not holding the civil post and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not attracted. We will have to clarify the position that the holding of the civil post and holding the public office are two different status. Public Prosecutor is not holding the civil post, but, he is holding a public office under a statute and he performs his official work as holding of the office under the authority of a particular statute, namely, Criminal Procedure Code. 12. This view is further fortified by the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Ramachandran v. A. Alagririswami, AIR 1961 Madras 450 . The duties of the Public Prosecutor enumerated in the Judicial Mannual of 1952 and the Criminal Procedure Code are duties of public nature. Besides, the public are genuinely concerned with the manner in which a Government pleader discharges his duties because, if he handles his cases badly, they have ultimately to foot the bill. Public Prosecutors of the High Court as well as of the Lower Courts are the holders of public office. It will not be out of place here to mention that the rules relating to the appointment of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors provided under the Judicial Mannual of 1952, are of not statutory nature. They are of administrative nature and they cannot over-ride the provisions of a Criminal Procedure Code or any other law enacted for the time being. 13. Their Lordships of Madras High Court in the case of A. Mohambaram v. M.A. Jayavelu and Ors., AIR 1970 Madras 63 , have held that the office of the Public Prosecutor involves duties of public nature and of vital importance to the public. Their Lordships further held that the Public Prosecutor is not just an Advocate engaged by the State to conduct its prosecution. The importance of the office from the point of view of the State and the community, is brought out under various provisions of law, particularly, the Criminal Procedure Code. Their Lordships have considered the various provisions of the old Cr. P.C., High Court Criminal Rules as well as the Government manual. 14. The importance of the office from the point of view of the State and the community, is brought out under various provisions of law, particularly, the Criminal Procedure Code. Their Lordships have considered the various provisions of the old Cr. P.C., High Court Criminal Rules as well as the Government manual. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also cited before us the case of the State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 S.C. 884 , Their Lordships have considered the meaning of the civil post. Post is employment but every employment is not post. Their Lordships further held that the casual labourer is not a holder of the post. Post may exist apart from the holder of the office. The State may create or abolish the post and may regulate the conditions of service of the appointee on the post. In the case of the holder of the post the relationship of master and servant may be established by persons of all or some of these under taking in conjunction with other circumstances and it is a question of fact in each case whether there is such relationship between the State and the alleged holder. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also cited before us some more cases and it is not necessary for us to refer to all of them. The latest case cited is of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. and Ors., JT 1990 (4) SC 211 . Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in Para-33 of the judgment that, 'where no plausible reason or principle is indicated nor is it discernible and the impugned State action, therefore, appears to be exfacie arbitrary, the initial burden to prove the arbitrariness is discharged shifting onus on the State to justify its action as fair and reasonable, if the State is unable to produce material to justify its action as fair and reasonable, the burden on the person alleging arbitrariness must be held to discharged. 16. Their Lordships have also considered in Para-40 of the judgment and held that, there is nothing in the circular to indicate that such a sweeping action for all districts throughout the State was necessary which made it reasonable to change all Government Counsel in the districts throughout the State, even those whose tenure in office had not expired. 16. Their Lordships have also considered in Para-40 of the judgment and held that, there is nothing in the circular to indicate that such a sweeping action for all districts throughout the State was necessary which made it reasonable to change all Government Counsel in the districts throughout the State, even those whose tenure in office had not expired. Such a drastic action could be justified only on the basis of some extra- ordinary ground equally applicable to all Government Counsel in the districts throughout the State which is reasonable. No such reason appears in the circular. 17. In the case of Triloki Nath Pandey and etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1990 Lab. I.C. 1256 , their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court held that the District Government Counsel does not hold civil post and the relationship of master and servant does not exist between him and Government. 18. On behalf of the State learned Advocate General cited before us the case of Satish Chandra Anand v. The Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250 . He has also referred various provisions of General Clauses Act to distinguish the U.P. Judicial Manual with the Rajasthan Judicial Manual. 19. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties. 20. In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The international Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , the then Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhagwati speeking for the Court observed as under: It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but, its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences etc, must be confined and structured by rational relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory." . 21. In the case of Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 , their Lordships have held that, where any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest discussed above and is found to be wanting in the quality of reasonableness or lacking in the element of public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid.' At one stage it was observed that, Government is not free like an ordinary individual in selecting recipient for its largesse and it cannot choose to deal with any person it pleases in its absolute and unfettered discretion. 22. In the case of Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1147 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the principles of natural justice and the question of largesse. 23. Some arguments may be raised that the Government counsel or a Public Prosecutor is an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the relationship of master and servant cannot exist in the case of Government counsel or a Public Prosecutor. It can be argued that to create a relationship of master and servant may be against the provisions of Advocates Act of 1961 as well as against the public policy. The relationship of the Advocate and the client is governed by the provisions of the Advocate Act and the relationship in only limited to the extent of relationship of Advocate and client. We are of the view that this view can be taken reasonably and the relationship of the Government counsel and the State is that of an Advocate and client and not of the master and servant. 24. We are of the view that this view can be taken reasonably and the relationship of the Government counsel and the State is that of an Advocate and client and not of the master and servant. 24. Duties of the Public Prosecutor are performed by the Advocate in his capacity as an Advocate and he holds the office of the Public Prosecutor and does not hold the civil post under the State. We will have to distinguish between the post and the office. Office of the Public Prosecutor is a statutory office as governed by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 24 clause (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is a provision that for every district the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. Under Clause (3) of Section 24, 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 the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district. We will have to take into consideration that the office of the Public Prosecutor that the office of the Public Prosecutor is a statutory office and carries with it heavy duties and rights and for this reason consultation with the Sessions Judge is necessary. Consultation must be effective consultation and the State Government has no authority to appoint any person as Public Prosecutor without the consultation of Sessions Judge. State Government has to record the reasons if the State Government disagrees with the view of the learned Sessions Judge. Consultation means an effective consultation. In the instant case, from the record made available to us we find that even the recommendations of the learned District & Sessions Judge were not forwarded to the Government and were retained by the District Magistrate. District Magistrate forwarded the panel without his comments. It will not be out of place here to mention that the petitioner was working as Public Prosecutor for more than a decade or so and his work has been found to be satisfactory and his name has been recommended in a better way than the name of Shri Vijay Vargiya. District Magistrate forwarded the panel without his comments. It will not be out of place here to mention that the petitioner was working as Public Prosecutor for more than a decade or so and his work has been found to be satisfactory and his name has been recommended in a better way than the name of Shri Vijay Vargiya. State Government has not recorded any reasons for disagreeing with the view of the learned Sessions Judge and picking up the name of Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya out of the panel in place of Manak Chand. It will not be out of place here to mention that the term of Shri Manak Chand was to expire in the year 1993 and, before the expiry of the term if anyone is to be removed from his office then it becomes more obligatory in the State to record the reasons for the removable of Public Prosecutor. From the wireless message sent to 14 districts it seems that the State Government wanted to change the Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors who were working in 14 districts. No emergency has been shown why such action was taken by sending wireless messages and not addressing a letter. Apart from that it seems that whenever the panel was received not to the liking of the State, in some cases, we find that the panel was further sent with a direction not to include the names of those persons whose names have been forwarded. We find it in the record of Ajmer Judgship itself. 25. We will like to express that our Sessions Judges should also consider that they are very responsible officers and they should not act according to the desires of the Executive as they should give a true picture and it is not necessary to send panel after panel and to send a panel of six names to include some persons whose names are wanted by the executive. For one post sending of six names is not desirable. At the most, learned Sessions Judge could have sent two-three names in the panel and that too in order of priority. For one post sending of six names is not desirable. At the most, learned Sessions Judge could have sent two-three names in the panel and that too in order of priority. To maintain independence of Judiciary, to maintain the dignity of law and to see that office of the Public Prosecutor is given due importance, learned Sessions Judge will have to play an important part in the matter of sending the names Under Clause (3) of Section 24 Cr. P.C. 26. In the Book, theory and Practise of Modern Government by Herman Finer, under the head Expertness and Interests, the author was considering, whether the representative Government functions better or not without every members contribution. The author expressed that modern democracy demands a great deal of political parties. Without them, representativeness and responsibility are denuded of meaning. If able, forceful man are elected by their districts, they will have enough individual and collective kick in them to compel merit and wisdom in the leadership or its change. Within each party prevails a constant competition by which political talent rises and falls to its own level. The author has further considered and was of the view that the sources of law are, however, far from being confined to the legislature, to the ministry, or to the civil service for neither their range of knowledge nor their range of interests is as comprehensive as society itself. It was also observed that all are representatives of interest. This is not an entirely new phenomenon in government; the ancient and the madieval state exhibited the same features. It was further observed that it was impossible for the ordinary institution of Government to penetrate the depths, and master the complexities of any modern branch of society and law without the special aid of those to whom the matter is one of lifelong and intimate acquaintance and to whom all things are revealed owing to the vitally felt quality of their interest in the result", the felt necessities. 27. Justice Holmes opined, 'Nor is it necessary that Government shall ask for aid; it is continually pressed by those who observe that the normal political institutions are ignorant or uncomprehending or that their interests are inadecuately represented and likely to be treated with insufficient care. 28. 27. Justice Holmes opined, 'Nor is it necessary that Government shall ask for aid; it is continually pressed by those who observe that the normal political institutions are ignorant or uncomprehending or that their interests are inadecuately represented and likely to be treated with insufficient care. 28. In France, Great Britain, United States and Germany different systems are prevalant for seeking the assistance of political quarters or of the persons who are in one way or the other having a similar and identical approach in the matter of policy. Special pressure orgainsations located in the neighbourhood or precinct of Parliament or Congress and the departments, and called by the American name of 'the lobby'. 29. It is necessary for us to take into consideration the provisions of the Specific Relief Act also, where no one can be compelled to starve. Without entering into controversy, which may arise in the matter of consideration, whether the post of Public Prosecutor is an Office or an authority. We are of the opinion that in the instant case following points are framed. 1. Mr. Manak Chand was appointed to hold the office upto 30-6-1993, however, his appointment has been revoked without notice vide Annex. 9. Subsequent notice during the course of hearing will not cure the defect. 2. The recommendations of the learned Sessions Judge about the merit of the person is very good and better in comparison to the person who has been appointed, Mr. Manak Chand has a wide experience of the office as he had the opportunity to perform the duties for about ten years. In such circumstance, there were no reasons to terminate his services and to appoint other person. 3. The question of termination of the services by notice arises when there is a doubt about the working of the person holding the office or there are some reasons. 30. We have gone through the file and we do not find any reason. 31. The State Government has issued a wireless message to 14 Collectors and asked for the panel of Public Prosecutors and Additional Prosecutors, goes to show that by a sweeping action the Government wanted to change the holders of the public office. 32. 30. We have gone through the file and we do not find any reason. 31. The State Government has issued a wireless message to 14 Collectors and asked for the panel of Public Prosecutors and Additional Prosecutors, goes to show that by a sweeping action the Government wanted to change the holders of the public office. 32. Learned Counsel for the non petitioner submitted that the term of most of them were going to be expired in 1990, but, there were some whose terms were to continue for a pretty long time and one of the cases is that Manak Chand, present petitioner. We may add that the appointment of a person to implement the policy of the Government may stand on a different footing their the appointment of the person to carry out the provisions of a particular statute, particularly, the status dealing with the law and order and sovereign functions of the State. To punish the offenders and to try the cases is a sovereign function of the State and the persons who are entrusted are not carrying out the policy of the State, but, they are carrying out the functions which have been entrusted to them under a particular statute. For this reason, the status of a Public Prosecutor stands on a different footing than the persons appointed in various Corporations to implement the policy of the Government or the party in power. We are fortified in taking this view by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. (supra). We are in dis-agreements with the learned Advocate General that because of some difference in the Manuals of U.P. and Rajasthan we should not apply this judgment. In U.P. no notice is necessary, whereas, in Rajasthan notice is necessary. The reason for giving a notice seems to be a good reason and not extraneous reason. 33. In the result, we accept the writ petition and set aside the order of termination of the services of Shri Manak Chand Jain (Annex. 9). We also set aside the order of appointment of Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya as Public Prosecutor. Mr. Manak Chand will continue to hold the office of the Public Prosecutor and he shall be entitled for all benefits which have accrued to him as Public Prosecutor during the pendency of the writ petition. 9). We also set aside the order of appointment of Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya as Public Prosecutor. Mr. Manak Chand will continue to hold the office of the Public Prosecutor and he shall be entitled for all benefits which have accrued to him as Public Prosecutor during the pendency of the writ petition. He shall be allowed to perform the duties of Public Prosecutor. 34. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 35. Singhvi, J. - I have gone through the detailed Judgment of my learned brother Mehta, J. and I fully agree with him that a Public Prosecutor does not hold a 'Civil Post' under the Government, but holds a public office and is required to dis- charge important statutory functions on behalf of the Government. I also fully agree with him that there' is no relationship of 'master' and 'servant' between a State and a Public Prosecutor appointed by the State. I also agree with him that the consultation envisaged by Section 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutor must be an effective consultation and the views expressed by the District & Sessions Judge on the merits of candidature of a person whose name has been sent in panel must be sent to the Government by the District Magistrate and the Government must apply its mind to the recommendations of the District & Sessions judge before appointing a Public Prosecutor. I am in full agreement with Mehta, J. that the Government must not act arbitrarily and must act fairly in the discharge of its public duties and all actions of the State can be tested on the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 36. However, I would like to say few words on the question as to whether the Government is entitled to terminate the tenure of a Public Prosecutor without any cogent reason. 37. Petitioner Manak Chand Jain was appointed as Public Prosecutor by an order dated 18.3.1983 by the Government under Section 24(3) read with Section 24 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by relaxing provisions contained in Clause (14) of the Law & Judicial Manual. Term of appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and the last extension was made upto June 30, 1993 by order dated 7.2.1990. Term of appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and the last extension was made upto June 30, 1993 by order dated 7.2.1990. The District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer issued a notice dated 26.6.1990 inviting applications from those Advocates who wanted to be appointed as Public Prosecutors/ Additional Public Prosecutors. The Advocates were directed to submit their names with full particulars by 30th June, 1990. Petitioner Manak Chand Jain apprehended the termination of his service and, therefore, he filed a writ petition on 16th July, 1990 with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from terminating his service as Public Prosecutor, Ajmer before, 30th June, 1993. An interim order was passed by the Court against termination of his service. However, the Government was left free to give one month's notice to the petitioner. The Government thereafter issued notice dated 1.9.1990 seeking to terminate the service of the petitioner. The District & Sessions Judge made his recommendations for appointment of Public Prosecutor/ Additional Public Prosecutor for the district of Ajmer. In the panel prepared by the learned District & Sessions Judge, the name of the petitioner as well as that of Shri Basant Vijayvargiya was included. Learned District & Sessions Judge made very appreciative remarks about the performance and efficiency of the petitioner. He also gave fairly good remarks for Shri Basant Vijayvargiya. The Government then appointed Shri Basant Vijayvargiya as Public Prosecutor for the district of Ajmer. A detailed reference has been made to the provisions of Rajasthan Law & Judicial Manual, 1952 and in particular, to the provisions contained in Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the same, which have been referred to by Shri Mehta, J. in his detailed judgment. Reference has also been made to the provisions of Section 24 Cr.P.C. 38. The question as to whether after receiving the panel containing names of the Advocates from the District Magistrate, who is expected to send it in consultation with the District & Sessions Judge, the Government is entitled to choose any person from the panel for appointment of Public Prosecutor/Additional Public Prosecutor is really of not much significance in the present case. The term of appointment of the petitioner as Public Prosecutor was to last till 30th June, 1993. This was the tenure of appointment of the petitioner as Public Prosecutor. The term of appointment of the petitioner as Public Prosecutor was to last till 30th June, 1993. This was the tenure of appointment of the petitioner as Public Prosecutor. The post of Public Prosecutor for the district of Ajmer was not vacant on 26.6.1990 or earlier to that when the learned District & Sessions Judge had issued notice inviting applications for appointment of Public Prosecutor/ Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner was very much holding the office of Public Prosecutor. Respondent Government may have some justification in asking the District Magistrate to send panel of the names of the Advocates for appointment of Public Prosecutor/ Additional Public Prosecutor where the term was going to expire shortly. However, it is not possible to accept that this action of the Government was justified in the case of district of Ajmer. No reason has been disclosed in the return nor could it be found in the file, which was placed before the Court by the learned Advocate General, which warranted action of the Government in calling for the panel of the Advocate for appointment of Public Prosecutor/ Additional Public Prosecutor particularly when the petitioner was holding the office of Public Prosecutor. There was no complaint against his working and there was no decision of the Government to remove him from the office. 39. Moreover, the notice of termination issued on 1.9.1990 by which the Government had intimated the petitioner that his service will be terminated at the end of one month's period from the date of service of notice, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In cases of Public servants when the appointment is made for a fixed tenure, the public servant is entitled to hold the office till expiry of that tenure as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Purushottam Dayal Dhingara v. Union of India & Others, AIR 1958 SC 36 which has been followed by a learned single Judge of this court in Dr. Umraomal v. State of Rajasthan, 1975 RLW 552 , Although the petitioner was not holding a civil post, but nonetheless he was holding a public office and before his tenure, which was to last upto June 30,1993 could be curtailed, the respondent Government ought to have given a notice to him containing proposal for terminating his tenure before expiry of the term and there ought to have been good and sufficient reasons for such action of the Government. Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Law & Judicial Manual, 1952 which con- templates that the Government may at any time and without assigning any reason, dispense with the service of Public Prosecutor after giving him one month's notice, is of no assistance to the respondents. The rules contained in Law & Judicial Mannual are not statutory rules and in any event they cannot whittle down the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution. In all cases, where the State action affects an individual, it is obligatory for the State to record reasons. It may not be necessary in all cases to communicate the reasons for its decision, but the reasons muss be recorded by the Government before taking a decision adversely affecting rights of an individual. In Kumari Srilekha v. State of U.P., JT 1990 (4) SC 211 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court had considered the provisions contained in G.O. dated 6th February, 90 issued by the Government of U.P. after elaborate consideration of the entire law on the subject of scope of power of judicial review and scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that even in contractual matters the State is bound to act fairly and must not act arbitrarily. In para 33 of the judgment, which has been referred to by Shri Mehta, J. it has clearly been held that where no plausible reason or principle is indicated nor is it discernible and the impugned State action, therefore, appears to be ex facie arbitrary, the initial burden to prove the arbitrariness in discharged shifting onus on the State to justify its action as fair and reasonable, the burden on the person alleging arbitrariness must be held to be discharged. 40. 40. In the present case, the petitioner has been able to discharge the initial burden by saying that there is no basis for the impugned action of the State to terminate his tenure before 30th June, 1993. The material which has been placed before the court by the learned Advocate General shows that the action to terminate the tenure of the petitioner has been taken without application of mind. A decision was first taken to call for the fresh panel for appointment of Public Prosecutor/ Additional Public Prosecutor. Thus the Government had already decided to terminate the tenure of the petitioner's appointment and the notice issued subsequently on 7.9.1990 was merely a formality and an attempt to fill-in lacune. No reason has been disclosed as to why the Government had decided to dispense with the service of the petitioner as Public Prosecutor for the District of Ajmer. It must, therefore, be held that the action of the respondent State in passing the impugned order is wholly arbitrary. 41. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed as indicated in the order ofPetition allowed. *******