14753 14754 of 2002 B. SINHA, J Leave granted in S.L.Ps.
The writ petitioners who were appointed as District Government Counsel on different dates inter alia companytended in their respective writ petitions that the State of U.P. acted arbitrarily in number renewing their term as their performance had been found to be satisfactory both by the District Officer as well as the District Judge companycerned in relation whereto they had also made recommendations in terms of the provisions of the Legal Rememberancer Manual and in that view of the matter the impugned orders refusing to renew their term being companytrary to the provisions thereof were number sustainable.
W I T H A. No of 2004 S.L.P. C No.
3129 of 2000 A. No of 2004 S.L.P. C No.
The State of U.P. is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 8.2.1999 whereby and whereunder the order of the State Government refusing to renew the term of the District Government Counsel has been set aside.
By reason of the impugned judgment dated 8.2.1999, a Division Bench of the High Court although accepted the plea of the Appellant to the effect that the appointment of the District Government Counsel and Additional District Government Counsel in the District Court would number amount to appointment in a civil post by the State Government and is merely a professional engagement but proceeded to companysider the individual cases on merits.
3130 of 2000 and A. Nos of 2004 S.L.P. C Nos.
The respondents in these ten appeals as also 24 other persons similarly situated filed writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court questioning the validity of the orders passed by the appellant herein refusing to renew their term as District Government Counsel Criminal .
While dismissing 24 writ petitions, the High Court allowed 10 writ petitions upon entering into the merit of the matter.
