1 WPC No.1594 of 2024 2025:CGHC:11099 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 4-3-2025 Order delivered on 6-3-2025 WPC No. 1594 of 2024 1. Saurabh Mani Mishra S/o Krishna Murari Mishra Aged About 49 Years R/o 107 Barde Bhata, Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Additional Secretary Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector / District Magistrate Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. District And Sessions Judge District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate For Respondent/State :Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Adv. General C A V Order Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned letter dated 11-1-2024 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh 2 WPC No.1594 of 2024 to the Collector/District Magistrate, KankerIn fact, the said letter is an internal communication between two authorities of the Government. The petitioner also challenges the subsequent process so far as it relates with the post of Public Prosecutor/Government Pleader in District Kanker. 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, has been appointed by order dated 11-3-2019 as Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor1 to represent the State Government in its matters at District Kanker for a period of one year. Thereafter, the same has been extended by order dated 6-5-2021 and 21-7-2023. Despite existence of said order, without adhering the proper procedure, the respondent authorities initiated process for appointment of GP/PP, Additional Government Pleader/Additional Public Prosecutor2 and Special Public Prosecutor3, which is evident from the impugned letter dated 11-1-2024. Thereafter, the District Judge has asked the interested Advocates to submit their names in the office of the Bar Association till 28-2-2024. According to the petitioner, during existence of his tenure, initiation of proceedings for fresh appointment to the post of GP/PP is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the the petitioner would submit that the impugned communication has been affixed, on the basis of a note of District & Sessions Judge, on the notice board of District Court, Kanker. 1 hereafter ‘GP/PP’ 2 hereafter ‘AGP/APP’ 3 hereafter ‘Spl. PP’ 3 WPC No.1594 of 2024 He would further submit that though the tenure of the petitioner was continuing, the Government has started the process for appointment of GP/PP in Kanker District. Learned counsel would submit that this Court has passed an interim order on 11-6-2024 by protecting the interest of petitioner and directed that the appointment of GP/PP at District Kanker shall not be finalised. Despite the said fact, during continuation of the interim order, the authorities have proceeded in the recruitment process and for which the contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner, which is pending consideration. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others v State of U.P. and Others4 and State of U.P. and Another v Johri Mal5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the impugned letter is an internal communication between the Law Department and the Collector and the same cannot be challenged in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that the inter departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right and no cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner from such communication. Learned counsel would submit that the tenure of the petitioner has put to an end by order dated 4-12- 2024 and in his place other person has been appointed, however, the 4 (1991) 1 SCC 212 5 (2004) 4 SCC 714 4 WPC No.1594 of 2024 petitioner has not challenged the said order till date. He would submit that the appointment to the post of GP/PP is professional engagement; no status of public nature is conferred on the incumbent. The Chhattisgarh Law Department Manual is merely a completion of executive instructions and it has not been issued by State Government in accordance with Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India. To buttress his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahadeo and Others v Sovan Devi and Others6 and the decision of this Court in the matter of Cheedeelal Yadaw and Another v State of Chhattisgarh and Others7. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 6. It is not in dispute that by order dated 4-12-2024 the tenure of the petitioner has put to an end and in his place another person has been engaged as GP/PP. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner and the newly appointed person has also not been impleaded as party/respondent whereas he has filed copy of the same before this Court yesterday i.e. on 3-3-2025 along with covering memo. 7. It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. Thus, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the internal communication dated 11-1-2024. 6 (2023) 10 SCC 807 7 WPS No.884 of 2015 (decided on 21-12-2015) 5 WPC No.1594 of 2024 8. The appointment to the post of GP/PP is professional engagement; no status of public nature is conferred on the incumbent. The Chhattisgarh Law Department Manual is merely a completion of executive instructions and it has not been issued by State Government in accordance with Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India. 9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that though earlier there was a provision that the Government may, at any time and without assigning any reason, dispense with the services of a PP or an APP after giving him one month’s notice, but the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh vide the gazette notification dated 13-8-2019 omitted the words “after giving him one month’s notice”. Thus, the question of giving one month’s notice does not arise in the matter. 10. The law relating to appointment of Additional District Government Counsel, Assistant District Government Counsel came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the matter of Johri Mal (supra) and it has been held that appointment of Additional District Government Counsel is professional engagement and they do not enjoy the statutory right with respect to renewal of tenures and holder of the office of PP doesn’t hold a “civil post”. 11. Further in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v Rakesh Kumar Keshari and another8, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while following the law laid down in the matter of Johri Mal (supra) 8 (2011) 5 SCC 341 6 WPC No.1594 of 2024 have held in no uncertain terms that nature of office held by lawyer (Government Advocate) vis-a-vis State is in nature of professional engagement and is not a civil post and therefore, there is no right of appointment or renewal of their post and choice lies with State Government and courts should be very circumspect in interfering with the decision of Government unless an exceptional case is made out. 12. It is also the trite law that the State must have freedom to appoint counsel of their choice and confidence. (See: State of Uttar Pradesh v Ajay Kumar and Others9). 13. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition seeking quashment of the internal communication dated 11-1-2024 (Annexure-P/1) between the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh to the Collector/District Magistrate, Kanker, is not maintainable. Even in absence of challenge to the order dated 4-12-2024 by which the petitioner’s tenure has put to an end and another person has been appointed, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 4-12-2024 before the appropriate forum, if so advised. No cost (s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri 9 Civil Appeal No.13727 of 2015 (decided on 26-11-2015) K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.03.07 14:26:35 +0530 7 WPC No.1594 of 2024 Head Note No cause of action accrues from an inter-departmental communication and the same cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. अंतर विभागीय प्ቔाचार से ाद हेतुक ्ቚो्ቓूत नहीं होता है तथा विकसी भी अधिकार का दाा विकये जाने हेतु उसका अलंबन नहीं लिलया जा सकता ।