- (1.) The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.722 and 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. They filed the connected Writ Applications before the High Court, against the decision of the State Government, refusing to extend their term for a further period of three years, which were dismissed by the High Court.
(2.) It appears that the appellants, except appellant No. 3, Gopal Sharma, had been appointed by Government Order dated 25-2-91, 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. Appellant No. 3, however, had been appointed on 13-12-1990. The last date of the tenure of the appellants, other than appellant No. 3, as mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order dated 25-2-1991 was 31-12-1991. The tenure of appellant No. 3 was up to 13-12-1991. It is not 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. The District Judge prepared two lists i.e. 'A' and 'B'. List 'A' contained the names of those lawyers "whose work and conduct has been approved for their extension as Government Counsel", whereas List 'B' contained the names of the remaining Government Counsel, who in the opinion of the District Judge were "average lawyers". The names of the appellants are in List 'A'. The District Judge requested the District Magistrate, Moradabad, to send his recommendation to the State Government for extension of the term of the Government Counsel, mentioned in List 'A'. The District Magistrate, after receipt of the recommendation of the District Judge aforesaid, by a communication dated 2-1-92, did not recommend the names of the appellants, for extension of their terms, saying that on the inquiry at his level, "reputation, professional work, behaviour and conduct of the above mentioned Government Counsel was not found in accordance with public interest". It may be mentioned that on 28-12-91 the State Government had extended the terms of the appellants till further orders. 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 controversy in the present appeals.
(3.) In the State of U. P., the Manual is an authoritative compilation of the Government orders and instructions for the conduct of legal affairs of the State Government. Para 1.06 of Chapter VII gives the details of the Law Officers of the Government, which includes the Government Counsel (Civil, Revenue, Criminal) along with many others like Judicial Secretary and Legislative Secretary. The Chapter VII of the Manual contains the procedure in respect of appointment and conditions of engagements of District Government Counsel. The District Officer is required to consider all the applications received, in consultation with the District Judge and to submit in order of preference the names of the legal practitioners, along with the opinion of the District Judge on the suitability and merit of each candidate to the State Government giving due weightage to the claim of the existing incumbents, if any. After the receipt of such recommendations, the Legal Remembrancer is required to submit the said recommendations with his own opinion for the orders of the State Government.;