- (1.) The State of U.P. by its order dated 3.6.2002 rejected the request of the respondent for renewal of the extension of his term as District Government Counsel (Criminal). The respondent challenged the same in the Writ Petition. The High Court of Allahabad vide impugned order quashed the order dated 3.6.2002 refusing renewal of the term of the respondent as District Government Counsel (Criminal) and further directed the State Government to renew the term of the respondent as a Government Counsel.
(2.) 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. We wish to say no more in this matter since the subject matter that arises for our consideration is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in State of U.P. And another v. Johri Mal (2004 (4) SCC 714). This Court took the view that in the matter of engagement of a District Government Counsel, a concept of public office does not come into play. The choice of a counsel is for the Government and none can claim a right to be a counsel. There is no right for appointment of a Government Counsel.
(3.) The High Court has committed a grave error in renewing the appointment of the respondent as Government Counsel.;