Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 229 (MP)

Nathan Singh Rajput v. State of M. P.

2014-02-20

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sujoy Paul, J.:- The petitioner, an Additional Government Counsel/Additional Public Prosecutor has filed this petition seeking benefit of Clause 20 of Public Prosecutor/Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor/Additional Government Pleaders condition of service (Annexure R-1). Admittedly, the petitioner on attaining 62 years of age was relieved on 15-1-2013. The singular contention advanced is that in terms of Clause 20 of the said condition of service (Annexure R-1), the petitioner has a right to continue till his successor joins or takes over from him. The prayer is opposed by Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Deputy Advocate General. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is apt to quote Clause 20 aforesaid:-- 20. Term of office. -- A Public Prosecutor/Government Pleader or Additional Public Prosecutor/Additional Government Pleader shall be appointed for a period not exceeding three years, excluding the period of his probation. He may be reappointed for further period not exceeding three years at a time, provided his name appears in the panel sent by the District Magistrate/Collector in consultation with District and Sessions Judge/District Judge from that year. No person will be appointed or continued as a Public Prosecutor/Government Pleader or Additional Public Prosecutor/Additional Government Pleader after he attains the age of sixty two years. Notwithstanding the expiry of the period, a Public Prosecutor/Government Pleader or Additional Public Prosecutor/Additional Government Pleader shall continue, to hold office until he is re-appointed or his successor take over. (emphasis supplied) 3. On the strength of Clause 20 aforesaid, Shri Amit Lahoti submits that the later portion of this Clause which begins with the words "Notwithstanding the expiry of the period.......", it is clear that despite having completed 62 years of service, the petitioner has a right to continue as a Government Counsel unless his successor takes over. The whole case is based on the interpretation of this Clause. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, Clause 20 is not happily worded. However, if it is carefully perused, it appears that in the first portion of the Clause at two places, it is mentioned that "for a period not exceeding three years" and "for further period not exceeding three years". Thus, at two places, the statute employs the words "for a period/further period" after the maximum period prescribed, i.e., three years. However, if it is carefully perused, it appears that in the first portion of the Clause at two places, it is mentioned that "for a period not exceeding three years" and "for further period not exceeding three years". Thus, at two places, the statute employs the words "for a period/further period" after the maximum period prescribed, i.e., three years. However, in the later portion of Clause 20, it is mentioned that no person can continue after he attains the age of 62 years. The notwithstanding clause on which great reliance is placed by Shri Lahoti deals with the 'expiry of period'. This expiry of period has to be related with the clauses in which period of three years is prescribed. In other words, the use of words 'expiry of period' relate with the period which are mentioned in the first portion, i.e. three years. This notwithstanding clause has no relation with the persons who have completed 62 years of age. Regarding the person, who has completed 62 years of age, the statute in no uncertain terms states that no person will be continued after he attains the age of 62 years. This portion of statute begins with the word 'no person......' It has a mandatory colour and impact. Thus, I am unable to hold that the notwithstanding clause can be made applicable to a person who has completed 62 years of age. Thus, contention of Shri Lahoti is not acceptable. 5. As analyzed above, the petitioner has no legal, vested, statutory or fundamental right to continue beyond the maximum age prescribed, i.e. 62 years. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed.