WITH CIVIL APPEALS NOS.
8 19 and 888 of 1992.
The tenure of appellant No.
after receipt of the recommendation of the District Judge aforesaid, by a companymunication dated 2.1.92, did number recommended the names of the appellants, for extension of their terms, saying that on the inquiry at his level, reputation, professional work, behaviour and companyduct of the above mentioned Government Counsel was number found in accordance with public interest.
2.1991 was 31.12.199 1.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.92 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos.
3, however, had been appointed on 13.12.1990.
P. Saxena for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.
386 87/93.
had been appointed by Government Order dated 25.2.91.
The names of the appellants are in ListA The District Judge requested the District Magistrate.
Yogeshwar Prasad and Ms. Rachna Gupta for the Respondent.
In the State of U.P., the Manual is an authoritative companypilation of the government orders and instructions for the companyduct of legal affairs of the State Government.
tile State Government had extended the terms of the appellants till further orders.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
except appellant No.
It appears that the appellants.
3, as mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order dated 25.
386 and 387 of 1993 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.92 of the Allahabad High Court in W. P. Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SINGH.
The District Judge prepared two lists i.e. A and B. List A companytained the name of those lawyers whose work and companyduct has been approved for their extension as Government Counsel, whereas List B companytained the names of the remaining Government Counsel, who in the opinion of the District Judge were average lawyers.
as Assistant District Government Counsel Criminal in the District of Moradabad, in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as the Code and the Legal Remembrancer Manual hereinafter referred to as the Manual against the substantive vacancies.
It may be mentioned that on 28.12.9 1.
They filed the companynected Writ Applications before the High Court against the decision of the State Government, refusing to extend their term for a farther period of three years, which were dismissed by the High Court.
Appellant No.
3, Gopal Sharma.
3 was up to 13.12.199 1.
722 and 723 of 1993.
Ultimately, without assigning any reason, the extension recommended by the District Judge was rejected by the State Government, which decision is the subject matter of the companytroversy in the present appeals.
J The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.
688 1246 of 1992.
722 723 of 1993 had been appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel Criminal to appear in different criminal cases, on behalf of the State, in different Courts in the District of Moradabad.
The last date of the tenure of the appellants, other than appellant No.
722 23/93.
Rajiv Dhawan, P.K. Dey and Rakesh Gosian, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, N.P. for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.
It is number in dispute that before the expiry of the term aforesaid, the District Judge, Moradabad, by his letter dated 27.12.1991 recommended the names of appellants for extension of their terms.
