Holding

The post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is a civil post under the State, so the dispute regarding his termination lies within the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal, not the High Court under Article 226.

Summary

Samareendra Das, appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) by the Governor of West Bengal, was terminated from service in 1979. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Calcutta High Court, which was initially allowed by a Single Judge. On appeal, the Division Bench held that the APP is not an officer subordinate to the High Court but a civil servant under the State, and consequently transferred the matter to the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The petitioner challenged this transfer before the Supreme Court, arguing that the APP post is a judicial officer and that the High Court has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined the relevant service rules and the definition of a civil post under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, concluding that the APP is indeed a civil post of the State. Accordingly, disputes concerning his service termination fall within the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal under Article 323A(1), not the High Court under Article 226. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is a civil post under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain a writ petition challenging the termination of an Assistant Public Prosecutor.
Whether the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal pursuant to Article 323A(1) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 15
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 25(1)
Constitution of Indias. 226, s. 311(2), s. 323A(1)

Subjects

Administrative TribunalCivil postService terminationJurisdictionArticle 226Article 323AAssistant Public ProsecutorWest Bengal

Judgment

A SAMARENDRA DAS, ADVOCATE
V.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

JANUARY 16, 2004
-'
B (V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.H. KAPADIA, J.]

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985/West Bengal Assis/ant Public
Prosecutors (Qualifications, Melhod of Recruitment and Conditions ofService)
C Rules, 1974/West Bengal Services (Appointment, Probation and Confirmation)
Rules, 1979-Section 15/Rules 3 and 4/Rule 6-Assistant Public Proseculor-
Appointment under 1974 Rules-Termination of service-Wril petition under
Article 226 of Constitution entertained by Single Judge of High Court-Division
Bench of High Court held that writ petition was not entertainable by High
Court and case transferred to State Administrative Tribunal-On appeal, Held:
D In view of the provisions of the Rules, the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor
was a civil post under State Government in terms of Section 15 of the Ac/-
Hence, the case was not entertainable by High Court under Article 226, but
by State Adminislrative Tribunal-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226
and 323A(I).

E Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor by State
Government. On his services being terminated, he filed writ petition which
was allowed by Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the
termination order. On appeal, Division Bench of High Court held that it
was not open to the petitioner to approach High Court under Article 226
p of the Constitution and Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the
same after coming into force of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, ).
because the petitioner was not an officer or servant of the court
subordinate to High Court and he was merely assisting the Court of
Judicial Magistrate on behalf of the State Government. The matter was
transferred to State Administrative Tribunal.
G
In the Special Leave Petition, the issue for consideration was whether
the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was a civil post under Section 15
of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

Dismissing the petition, the Court
H 532
SAMARENDRA DAS v. STATE 533
HELD: 1. The post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was Civil Post A
under the State in terms of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985. High Court was right in its conclusion that the dispute lay before
the Administrative Tribunal and, consequently, the High Court was right
in transferring the writ petition to the State Administrative Tribunal.
[536-A, B[ B
2. A bare reading of Rules 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Assistant
Public Prosecutors (Qualifications, Method of Recruitment and Conditions
of Service) Rules, 1974 indicate that the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor
is a civil post, and consequently, all service matters concerning such posts
shall fall within the jurisdiction, powers and authority of State C
Administrative Tribunals under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985. Further, the order of termination passed in the present matter
also indicates that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated as
Assistant Public Prosecutor, under Rule 6 of the West Bengal Services
(Appointment, Probation and Confirmation) Rules, 1979 on payment of
one month's salary in lieu of notice. This also indicates that the post of D
Assistant Public Prosecutor was a Civil Post under tJie State in terms of
Section 15(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Hence the present
dispute regarding termination of service of Assistant Public Prosecutor
came within the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal under
Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. E
[536-G, H; 537-A-C)

3. In order to come under Article 323A(l), the employee must hold
his employment under the Union or under a State Government. In the
present case, the petitioner held his employment under the State
Government. Therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, p
try and dispose of this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(537-D, Ej

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1997) SC 127,
referred to.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 22866 of 2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.2003 of the Calcutta High
Court in A.F.O. No. 1055 of 2003 (M.R.T. No. 3194/99).
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S. C.R.

A Petitioner-In-Person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J. The question before us is: Whether the post of Assistant
Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as "APP") was a Civil Post under
B the State of West Bengal in terms of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985.

Background Facts

By Notification dated 9th April, 1975, the Governor of West Bengal
C was pleased 10 appoint the petitioner to act as an Assistant Public Prosecutor
with effect from date of his assuming charge in the court of Judicial Magistrate,
Maida. The Notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section .25(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner took
charge as Assistant Public Prosecutor on 23rd April, 1975. On 29th January
1977, he was posted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Maida as
D Assistant Public Prosecutor. During this period the petitioner completed two
years probation. As per Rule 4(d) of the Assistant Public Prosecutors ~
(Qualifications, Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1974, on 31st March, 1978 he was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor
in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Maida. However, his services were
E terminated by the Governor of West Bengal with an order No. 21144-J dated
22nd September, 1979 which order was communicated to _him by the
Administrative Magistrate, Maida with a Memo No. 1680-J dated 25th
September 1979 along with a cheque for Rs. 777.70 as one month's salary
in lieu of notice as required under Rule 34B(2) of the West Bengal Service
Rules 1971. Suffice it to state that the petitioner being aggrieved and
F dissatisfied by the impugned orders filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
By judgment and order dated 25th February, 1999, the learned Single Judge
allowed the Writ Petition and the impugned order of termination of service
• was set aside. Being aggrieved, State of West Bengal went in appeal to the
Division Bench of the High Court which took the view that the petitioner was
G not an officer or servant of the court subordinate to the High Court; that the
petitioner has worked as Assistant Public Prosecutor and as Assistant Public
Prosecutor he was merely assisting the Court of Judicial Magistrate on behalf
of the State of West Bengal. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench
following the decision of the apex Court in l. Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India and Ors., AIR (1997) SC 1127 came to the conclusion that it was not
H open to the petitioner to directly approach the High Court under Article 226
SAMARENDRA DAS v. STATE [KAPADIA, J.] 535

of the Constitution. The Division Bench fm1her took the view that the learned A
' Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and hear the Writ Petition
field by the petitioner after coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 and, consequently, the Division Bench transferred the matter to the
State Administrative Tribunal for disposal. Being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division bench dated 14th January, 2003, B
the petitioner has moved this Court by way of Special Leave Petition under
Article 136 of the Constitution.

The short point for determination is whether the post of APP was a
Civil Post under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, C
(hereinafter referred to for the sake and gravity "the said Act, 1985").

ARGUMENTS

The petitioner appeared in person. The main contention before us was
that he was an officer or servant of the court subordinate to the High Court. D
That he was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor of the Maida Court
vide Notification dated 9th April, 1975 and his duty was to assist the Court
on behalf of the State of West Bengal. That his service conditions were under
the control of the District Magistrate, Maida; that his appointing authority
was a judicial department and his controlling officer was District Officer, E
Maida. He contended that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in
holding that he was not an officer of the court subordinate to the High Court.
He contended that the Division Bench had erred in transferring the Writ
Petition to the State Administrative Tribunal. He argued that he was appointed
by the Governor of West Bengal under Section 25(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and, consequently, he was posted as Assistant Public F
Prosecutor in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Maida. He contended that the
High Court had jurisdiction to consider the matter as he was an officer of the
Court subordinate to the High Court. On facts he contended that there was
a violation of A1ticle 311 (2) of the Constitution and the alleged violation was
required to be examined by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under G
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the petitioner as
Assistant Public Prosecutor was an officer of the court of Judicial Magistrate
I which was court subordinate to the Calcutta High Court and, therefore, the
petitioner came within the ambit of the exception in Section 2(c) of
Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985. Accordingly, it was argued that the
Division Bench of the High Court erred in transferring the writ petition to the H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.
A State Administrative Tribunal.
I
FINDINGS

For the reason mentioned hereinafter, we answer the above issue in the
affirmative i.e against the petitioner. We hold that the post of Assistant Public
B Prosecutor was Civil Post under the State in terms of Section 15 of the said
Act 1985. We hold that the High Court was right in its conclusion that the
dispute lay before the Administrative Tribunal and, consequently, the High
Court was right in transferring the writ petition to the State Administrative
Tribunal.

C REASONS

At the outset, we wish to the point out that on 19th March 1974, in
exercise of the powers c~nferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution, the Governor of West Bengal was pleased to frame the West
D Bengal Assistant Public Prosecutors (Qualifications, Method Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The said Rules came into force on and
from Ist April, 1974. Rule 3 of the said Rules 1974 deals with method of
recruitment. Rule 3 inter alia states that Assistants Public Prosecutor shall
be law Officer on the establishment of Legal Rememberancer and he shall be
appointed by the State Government by selection from practising lawyers of
E the required standing. Under Rule 4 conditions of service of Assistant Public
Prosecutor have been stipulated. Rule 4 states that the Assistant Public
Prosecutor shall be whole time Government servant appointed for conducting
prosecution in the court of Magistrates. It further states that Assistant Public
Prosecutors shall be under the immediate control of the respective Divisional
Magistrate subjects to the joint control of the District Magistrate. Under Rule
F 4( d) it has been further stipulated that persons appointed substantively to the
permanent posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor shall undergo probation for
two years. Under Rule 4(e) it is fu1ther stipulated that the Assistant Public
Prosecutors shall in the matter of pay, allowances, leave, retirement, pension,
gratuity etc. will be governed by the Rules for the time being in force and
G generally applicable to persons holding appointments under the State
Government. A bare reading of Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the West Bengal
Assistant Public Prosecutors (Qualifications, Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 indicate that the post of Assistant Public
Prosecutor is a civil post, and consequently, all service matters concerning
such posts shall fall within the jurisdiction, powers and authority of State
H Administrative Tribunals under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals
..AI

SAMARENDRA DAS v. STATE [KAPADIA, J.] 537

Act, 1985. Further, the order of tennination passed in the present matter also A
indicates that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated as Assistant
Public Prosecutor, Maida under Rule 6 of West Bengal Services (Appointment,
Probation and Confirmation) Rules, 1979 on payment of one months salary
in lieu of notice. This also indicates that the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor
was a Civil Post under the State in tenns of Section 15( I) ofthe Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985. At this point, we may mention that the West Bengal B
Administrative Tribunal has been established under Section 4(2) of
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which is also indicated by West Bengal
Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994. Hence, the present dispute
regarding termination of service of Assistant Public Prosecutor came within
the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal under Section 15 of C
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Lastly, it may be mentioned that a radical change was introduced in the
constitutional law relating to the Services by 42nd Constitutional Amendment
Act, 1976, which inserted into the Constitutional, Article 323A, to take out
the adjudication of disputes relating to conditions of service of the public D
services of the Union and of the States from the Civil Courts and the High
Courts and to place it before an Administrative Tribunal for the Union or of
a State. In order to come under Article 323A(l), The employee must hold his
employment under the Union or under a State Government. In the present
case, we find that the petitioner held his employment under the State E
Government of West Bengal. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge of the
High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and disposed of this matter
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the Division Bench of the High
Court was right in transferring the matter to the State Administrative Tribunal.
We do not wish to express any opinion on merits of this case.
F
For the aforesaid facts stated, there is no merit in the Special Leave
Petition and the same is consequently dismissed. No order as to costs.

K.K.T. Petition dismissed