In the writ petition, the stand taken by the respondent was that in terms of the rule, the petitioner has a right to companytinue and in any case for companysideration of renewal of his term, the impugned order does number state any reasons and, in fact, does number take into companysideration the recommendations made by the District and Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate, who had recommended renewal of the term of the respondent.
35566 of 2010 against the order dated 18th September, 2010, SLP C No.
In other words, the interim order had merged into the order of the High Court dated 10th February, 2011 against which as of number, numberpetition has been filed.
Aggrieved from the above order, the respondent filed writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
9156 of 2011 against the order dated 19th January, 2011, SLP C No.
35568 of 2010 was filed against the order dated 29th September, 2008, SLP C No.
35562 of 2010 against the order dated 9th April, 2010, SLP C No.
35565 of 2010 was filed against the order dated 14th September, 2009, SLP C No.
Please take necessary action at your end and forward your proposal from the panel of Advocates for being engaged as District Government Counsel against the companysequential vacancy.
20917 of 2011 against the order dated 29th April, 2011 and SLP C No.
9156 of 2011 has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as such.
The interim order dated 19.1.2011 had directed that numberregular appointment shall be made on the post Government Advocate in place of the appellant.
20918 of 2011 and SLP C No.
18407 of 2011 against the order dated 26th April, 2011.
It further directed that the appellant be allowed to companytinue as the District Government Counsel Criminal subject to any decision being taken afresh in accordance with the directive issued by the judgment of that Court passed in Writ Petition No.10038 MB of 2009.
523 of 2003 titled Pramod Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
However, the State Government, appellant herein, vide order dated 3rd April, 2008 refused his renewal which resulted in cancellation of engagement of the said respondent.
Thus, the special leave petition No.
SLP C No.
9156 of 2011 has been directed against an interim order passed by the Division Bench of that High Court in Miscellaneous Bench No.
The District Judge, Lucknow on 26th February, 2007 gave his report and the District Magistrate also submitted his report on 5th March, 2007 recommending the renewal of the term of the respondent.
SLP C No.
The order dated 3rd April, 2008 can usefully be reproduced at this stage From Acharya Suresh Babu Deputy Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh To The District Magistrate Lucknow Nyay Anubhag 3 Appointment Lkw, dated 3.4.2008 Sub Renewal of Tenure of engagement of District Government Counsels at the District Level Sir, With reference to your Letter No.
35279 of 2009 Mr. Ashok Kumar Nigam, respondent herein was appointed as District Government Counsel on 17th September, 2004 vide a numberification issued by the State Government.
Though dated differently, the questions of law involved in all these appeals are identical based upon somewhat similar facts.
These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
35569 of 2010 was filed against the order dated 24th September, 2008, SLP C No.
The term of the said respondent was renewed on 3rd March, 2006 for a period of one year and as such his term came to an end on 5th March, 2007.
13788 of 2011 against the order dated 28th April, 2011, SLP C No.
The respondent submitted his application for renewal of his term on 19th January, 2007.
Swatanter Kumar J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
Vide its judgment dated 10th February, 2011, the Division Bench of the High Court finally disposed of the interim application by staying the operation of the orders dated 24th December, 2010 and 28th December, 2010 passed by the respondents.
