Shortly thereafter, in Bishan Pal Saxena v. State of U.P. Writ Petition Misc.
The State Governments Order, which is dated 13.8.2008, came to be assailed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in a bunch of more than 100 writ petitions, including the lead petition U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti v. State of U.P. Writ Petition Misc.
Bench No.
The District Magistrates were to verify the number of vacancies on the Civil, Criminal and Revenue sides.
4042 4043 of 2012 titled State of U.P. Ors.
Nevertheless, three clarifications were recorded.
P.C. for brevity and the Legal Remembrancer Manual hereinafter referred to as the LR Manual applicable throughout the State of U.P. The Manual which came into force in 1975 inter alia prescribes mandatory companysultation with the District Judge and the District Magistrate on the one side and the State on the other.
Sadhna Sharma, during the pendency of which there was a change in the State Government.
7851 of 2008 reported as 2012 30 LCD 1066 .
The State as the Appellant, has assailed the final judgment and order dated 5.11.2014 in Writ Petition being Misc.
Bench No.
The High Court in this impugned Order has quashed the Orders of the State Government terminating the appointment of District Government Counsel and has further directed the State Government to reconsider their renewal.
5 Aggrieved by the aforementioned Judgments, the State Government filed Special Leave Petitions No.
Bench No.
7 In terms of the Government Order dated 5.9.2012, pursuant to the Judgments of the Supreme Court dated 17.7.2012 and of the High Court on 25.7.2012, the engagement of the Respondents was put to an end and their renewal in the light of companysultation reports was awaited.
9127 of 2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
7825 of 2011.
P.C. had number been challenged.
v. State of U.P. Writ Petition Misc.
By an Order dated 6.1.2012 passed in those proceedings, the High Court directed the State to make fresh appointments expeditiously, and in the interregnum permitted the existing empanelled Advocates to discharge their duties.
In the companyrse of disposing of these SLPs this Court pointedly and poignantly observed that the companystitutional validity of Section 24 Cr.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 Leave granted.
Immediately thereupon, a prayer was made before this Court for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petitions on the predication that the newly elected State Government had accepted the assailed judgments of the High Court of Allahabad and accordingly intended to implement it in its entirety.
It was on the basis of the LR Manual as amended that the Respondents before us came to be appointed as District Government Counsel across the length and breadth of the State of U.P. This is a numbereworthy feature on which our decision will turn in some measure.
This lead to the filing of writ petitions, including Ajay Kumar Sharma Anr.
8246 of 2011, in terms of its Order dated 12.1.2012 the High Court directed the State of U.P. to reconsider the selection and appointment of Advocates to the post of Additional District Government Counsel, Assistant District Government Counsel, Panel lawyers and Sub District Government Counsel that the persons appointed in pursuance of old provisions would companytinue till the companypletion of the reconsideration process and, all fresh appointments would be carried out strictly in companyformity with U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti and Sadhna Sharma v. State of U.P Writ Petition Misc.
Bench No.
4 In August 2008, the then State Government, in terms of the Government Order dated 13.8.2008, had amended the LR Manual thereby removing the process of companysultation with the District Judge for the appointment of District Government Counsel effectively, thereafter the LR Manual required the State to only companysult with the District Magistrate.
