Bombay High Court: While hearing a writ petition by an advocate objecting to the appointment of Respondent 3 as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor and also seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him for same post, a Bench consisting of R.M.Borde and K.L.Wadane, JJ. stated that it is pertinent for the State to promote, protect and safeguard public interest and it could only be achieved when it will appoint efficient and honest persons competent enough to hold offices by following prescribed procedure.
In the instant case, it is clear that mandate of Rule 13(4) of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service And Remuneration) Rules, 1984 has been breached and appointment of respondent cannot be considered owing to several pending criminal cases against him and not having positive recommendations of interview committee, Principal District and Sessions Judge, law and judiciary department of State of Maharashtra in his favor.
The Court further stated that contention made by Respondent 3 regarding impermissibility to review administrative decisions in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution is devoid of substance. It was an established running practice opted by the State Government to consult the Principal District and Sessions Judge and in the instant matter, also the circular issued on behalf of the State Government not only require calling for opinion of the Principal District and Sessions Judge but mandates the District Magistrate to give due weightage to the opinion expressed by Principal District and Sessions Judge. The Court was not inclined to consider the request made by respondent for staying operation of the judgment and order. The request was thus rejected and his appointment as District Government Pleader, being in breach of Law officers Rules of 1984, was set aside and quashed the notification. [Dilip Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 2429, decided on 6.6.2017]
It certainly needs to be investigated as to how and why such a person, despite several pending criminal cases against him and not having positive recommendations of interview committee, Principal District and Sessions Judge, law and judiciary department of State of Maharashtra in his favor, was appointed in breach of rules and against established practice. Concerned appointing authorities must be held accountable.