Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20231
Decided on: 24.06.2025
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. C.M. Jha, Adv., Ms. Nisha Thakur, Adv., Mr. Draksha Khan, Adv., Mr. Krishnam Mishra, AOR
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(u), 24 – Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- Additional Public Prosecutor -- Contractual appointment -- Regularisation of -- Petitioner has not been able to establish any right either statutory or constitutional so as to deserve the relief of regularisation -- Appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant Rules prevalent in the particular State -- Thus, a claim for regularisation of a person working on the said post on contractual basis cannot be entertained as such relief would be contrary to law -- High Court committed no error in rejecting the Writ Petition -- Special leave petition dismissed.
(Para 3, 4)
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the High Court committed no error whatsoever in rejecting the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for being regularised on the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. It may be stated that the petitioner himself had been requesting the learned District Magistrate, Purulia to continue him in contractual capacity so as to earn livelihood.
3. The petitioner has not been able to establish any right either statutory or constitutional so as to deserve the relief of regularisation. The appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant Rules prevalent in the particular State. Thus, a claim for regularisation of a person working on the said post on contractual basis cannot be entertained as such relief would be contrary to law.
4. In this view of the matter, the special leave petition lacks merit and is dismissed as such.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Petition dismissed.
********