Dismissed

Pramod Sharma S/O Shri Shanti Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2019SAW/1430/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition arguing against the appointment of an appellant as a Public Prosecutor beyond the age of 62 under Rule 18 of the governing manual. The High Court rejected the argument.

What did the court decide?

None. The appointment of the appellant as Public Prosecutor was upheld based on the non-absolute nature of the age restriction in Rule 18.

Pramod Sharma S/O Shri Shanti Swaroop Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1430/2019

¶3

Pramod Sharma S/o Shri Shanti Swaroop, Aged About 60 Years, R/o A-57, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Law And Legal Affairs Department, Government Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

District Magistrate And District Collector, District Bharatpur.

¶8

Shri Dori Lal Bhagel, (Enrollment No.R/411/1976), R/o 52, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed

¶11

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY CHATURVEDI

¶12

Order

¶13

26/11/2019

¶14

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 5.9.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

¶16

Appellant had filed the petition challenging the order dated 9.7.2019, whereby the respondent no.3 was appointed as Public Prosecutor by the State Government. It was the case of the appellant that as per the Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Law & Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[SAW-1430/2019]

¶19

1999’), a public prosecutor could be appointed who was aged below 62 years.

¶20

Rule 18 of the Rules of 1999, reads as under:-

¶21

“18. Term of office.- A Public Prosecutor shall be appointed for a term not exceeding three years at a time, as the Government may determine in each case. Ordinarily no person will be appointed a Public Prosecutor after he attains the age of 62 years or continued in that office after that age. Notwithstanding the expiry of the period of his term of appointment, a Public Prosecutor shall continue as such until his successor is appointed.”

¶22

Learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that reading of Rule 18 of Rules of 1999 reveals that ordinarily Public Prosecutor should not be appointed if he has attained the age of 62 years or continued in that office after that age. Thus, the word “Ordinarily” would mean that ‘normally’ a person who has attained the age of 62 years of age be not appointed as Public Prosecutor, but it cannot be said that a person who had crossed the age of 62 years could not be appointed as a Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Reasons given by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant are sound reasons and call for no interference.

¶24

Dismissed.

¶25

(ABHAY CHATURVEDI),J

¶26

(SABINA),J

¶27

Anil Makwana /40

Pramod Sharma S/O Shri Shanti Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Sharma S/O Shri Shanti Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Rajasthan through Its Home Secretary Vs Shiv Ram Gurjar S/O Sh. Roop Singh Gurjar

M/S Paramount Wire and Cable Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Anil Saini S/O Shri Satyanarayan Saini Vs Smt. Lakshita Alias Meena Saini W/O Shri Anil Saini D/O Moolchand Saini