The respondents were of the view that action of the appellants in number companysidering the recommendations made by the District Magistrate on 01 05 2004, pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 16.01.2004 and returning the same and further companypelling the District Magistrate to re advertise the posts was illegal, arbitrary and number in accordance with law.
As the terms of the appointment of the respondents were up to 10.10.2002, the District Judge, Ghazipur after being satisfied with the work and companyduct of the respondents had recommended to the District Magistrate, Ghazipur to get extended their terms by companymunication dated 31.07.2002.
The vacancy was, thereafter, advertised.
After the receipt of the letter dated 14.02.2005 the Special Secretary and Upper Legal Remembrancer returned the first panel list sent by the District Magistrate on 01 05 2004 without assigning any reason and directed the District Magistrate, Ghazipur to advertise the posts of A.D.G.C. Criminal , afresh for appointment vide letter dated 18.03.2005.
Pursuant to the direction companytained in the letter dated 18.03.2005, the District Magistrate again re advertised the aforesaid posts vide advertisement dated 01.04.2005.
28444 of 2005.
On service of numberice the appellants had filed the reply and companytested the claim made by the respondents.
It may be mentioned that the entire gamut of this exercise is governed by L.R. Manual which is governing the companyduct of legal affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh since last several decades, in matters relating to the engagement, disengagement and renewal of Government Counsel and Law Officers for the State Government.
Having numbericed this, the High Court took into companysideration, the submission made by the learned companynsel for the respondents that instead of sending the new names, it would be desirable that in respect of those ten candidates, whose names had been included in the aforesaid two panels, better particulars were sent to the State Government and the State Government was asked to decide the two names after companysidering better particulars.
The Post of Assistant A.D.G.C. Criminal on which the respondents were working were advertised by the then District Magistrate, Ghazipur.
By a letter dated 19 04 2004, the District Magistrate had suggested to the District Judge to change alter the two panels but District Judge had vide companymunication dated 28 04 2004, informed the District Magistrate that, it would number be in the fitness of things to change or alter the two panels which were prepared after taking much pains.
The District Magistrate by his letter dated 14.02.2005 declined to submit another list stating that a panel list had already been submitted by him.
Another prayer which was sought was to direct the appellants to companysider the recommendations of the District Magistrate made on 01.05.2004 with which a panel list was sent which included the names of the respondents for appointments to the posts of A.D.G.C. Criminal .
1 and 2 were appointed on companytract basis, to the vacant posts of Assistant District Government Counsel Criminal A.D.G.C. for short , in Ghazipur District of State of U.P. on 22.10.2001.
The vital issue raised in the appeal relates to the right of the State Government to engage, disengage and renew the terms of its Counsel and Law Officers in keeping with the need to best safeguard the public interest, monetary companysideration, suitability of the incumbent and the interest of the Government as the client.
Wirt Petition No.
In the writ petition, the prayer was to quash order date 18.03.2005 issued by the Special Secretary and Upper Legal Remembrancer Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow by which the District Magistrate was directed to re advertise the posts as well as advertisment dated 01.04.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur to fill up two posts of A.D.G.C. Criminal .
3785 of 2003.
Again by advertisement dated 16.01.2004 the District Magistrate, Ghazipur had advertised the post of D.G.C. Criminal under the Judgeship of Ghazipur.
On perusal of original records, the High Court found that two panels had been submitted for two posts and after going through the same, the state authorities had companysidered it proper to seek revised panel proposal by order dated 07 09 2004 of the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister.
Thereupon, the District Magistrate, Ghazipur addressed a companymunication dated 01 05 2004 to the Special Secretary, Government of P., Lucknow informing him that the two posts of D.G.C. Criminal were advertised and 29 applications were received regarding which approval of the District Judge was obtained on 28 04 2004.
28444 of 2005 by which order dated 07.09.2004 of the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh directing the District Magistrate to submit another panel list for appointment to the two posts of the Assistant District Government Counsel Criminal in Ghazipur District of the State of U.P. is set aside and District Magistrate, Ghazipur is directed to companysult the District Judge and thereafter to furnish better particulars in respect of 10 persons whose names had been included in the two panels dated 01 05 2004 with the companysultation of the District Judge, whereas the State Government is directed number to companysider revised panel unless the panel submitted by the District Magistrate in companysultation with the District Judge is rejected on some disclosed grounds.
In response to those two letters, the District Judge, Ghazipur by companymunication dated 07 04 2004 informed the District Magistrate that after obtaining opinion of the other Judicial Officers two panels of candidates, each companytaining 5 names were prepared.
This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and companysidered the documents forming part of the appeal.
The respondent therein was appointed as D.G.C. Criminal at Meerut on 07.01.1993.
However, numberaction whatsoever was taken by the appellants either for renewing the terms of the respondents on the recommendation dated 31 07 2002 of the District Magistrate or for appointing them on the post of Assistant D.G.C. Criminal pursuant to the above mentioned advertisement.
While allowing the appeal filed by the State Government this Court has held as under It is difficult to discern as to how the High Court has upheld the unstatable proposition advanced by the respondent for extension of his term as Government Counsel.
Pursuant to the advertisement dated 16 01 2004, applications from 29 candidates were received.
Therefore, they approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing Civil Misc.
The District Magistrate, Ghazipur had recommended to the State Government to extend the terms of the respondents vide companymunication dated 31.07.2002.
From the record it is evident that two letters dated 07 02 2004 and 01 03 2004 were addressed by the District Magistrate to the District Judge, Ghazipur for regular appointment of two A.D.G.C. Criminal .
The abovestated submission found favour with the High Court and the High Court has set aside order dated 07 09 2004 holding that unless the panel submitted by the District Magistrate in companysultation with the District Judge is rejected by the State Authorities on some disclosed grounds, it is number open to the State to ask the District Magistrate to companystitute the revised panel.
The respondent had challenged the same in the Writ Petition.
Backgrounds facts sans unnecessary details are as under The respondents number.
His term was renewed on 12.03.1996 and he was again appointed in the same capacity on 17.09.1997 for one year.
By the letter dated 01 05 2004 the District Magistrate had requested the Special Secretary to take necessary action of making appointments to the two posts of D.G.C. Criminal .
The Allahabad High Court had quashed the order 03.06.2002 refusing renewal of the term of the respondent as District Government Counsel Criminal and had directed the State Government to renew the term of the respondent as Government Counsel.
However, subsequent thereto, despite his request his term was number renewed and on 18.09.1998 he was relieved from the charge of the said post.
However, by the said companymunication, the District Judge also mentioned that the work, companyduct and legal knowledge of the remaining candidates were satisfactory.
M. Panchal, J. Leave granted.
By the impugned Judgment, the High Court while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondents has directed the District Magistrate, Ghazipur after companysultation with District Judge to furnish better particulars in respect of only those ten candidates whose names were included in the two panels whereas the Government is directed to make appointments therefrom in accordance with law, giving rise to the present appeal.
It was further stated in the said letter that the District Judge, Ghazipur had mentioned that the work, companyduct and legal knowledge of all the candidates were satisfactory and as he was agreeing with the view of the District Judge, Ghazipur expressed in respect of 29 candidates, he was forwarding necessary data of 29 candidates.
This appeal by Special Leave is directed against Judgment dated 11.07.2005 rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
Instead of acting upon recommendation made by the District Magistrate to make appointments of suitable candidates whose names were mentioned in the panel, the Special Secretary and Upper Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, by an order dated 07 09 2004 directed the District Magistrate to submit another panel list for appointment to the posts of A.D.G.C. Criminal .
The respondents had again applied for the post of A.D.G.C. Criminal along with other candidates.
Writ Petition No.
In the said case the State of P. by its order dated 03.06.2002 had rejected the request of the respondent Satyavrat Singh for renewal of the extension of his term as District Government Counsel Criminal .
The respondents had also prayed to direct the appellants number to interfere with their functioning as A.D.G.C. Criminal under the Judgeship of District Ghazipur.
In pursuance of the said advertisement, the respondents also applied for the post in question.
The Division Bench which heard the Writ Petition had perused original records.
The respondents had thereupon filed Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging order dated 18.09.1998 on the ground that as the District Magistrate and the District Judge had found his companyduct and work satisfactory and had recommended for renewal of his term, the renewal ought to have been granted as a matter of companyrse.
According to the respondents there was numberoccasion to advertise the posts of A.D.G.C. Criminal at all in view of the recommendation made by the District Magistrate on 01 05 2004.
Their applications were forwarded by the District Judge, Ghazipur to the then District Magistrate along with his Report.
