S.N. Sahay, J. - (1.) This case has been referred to me on a difference of opinion between Brothers J. K. Mathur and K. L. Sharma, JJ.
(2.) The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed Standing Counsel in Lucknow Bench of the High Court by opposite party No. 1 on July 23, 1990 and continued as such till January 25, 1991. Thereafter he was given a fresh appointment as Standing counsel by order dated January 25, 1991. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 was also appointed as Standing Counsel by opposite party No. 1 by order dated January 25, 1991. Both the appointments were made till December 31, 1991, as the first appointment could be made only for a period of one year in the first instance, subject to further renewal for a period of three years at a time, as provided under para 6 of Appendix B of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual (referred to as LR Manual hereafter for the sake of brevity). The petitioners have further alleged that ordinarily their appointments should have been renewed for the period of three years with effect from January 1, 1992. However, the petitioners were informed by the Chief Standing Counsel on January 2, 1992 that under the orders passed by opposite party No. 1 on December 31, 1991 the petitioners were directed to continue as Standing Counsel until further orders as the renewal of the petitioners'appointment was under consideration.
(3.) The petitioners have submitted that they have discharged their duty with sincerity and devotion and to the best satisfaction of their superiors. The integrity, devotion, competence and efficiency of the petitioners were never questioned by the Chief Standing Counsel or the Law Department of the State Government. But the petitioners have been, it is so alleged by them, victimised as a result of political rivalry. With regard to petitioner No. 2 it is further alleged that he has been a victim of the wrath of the Government, as he was a counsel on behalf of the Muslim community in Ram-Janam-Bhumi-Babari Masjid case and the Advocate General was the counsel of the Hindu community in that case and the view and attitude of the Government in the aforesaid case has all along been anti-Muslim. The petitioners have, accordingly, contended that the impugned order is the result of malice and arbitrariness and has been passed without the existence of any reasonable cause. They have also contended that under para 6 of the Appendix B of the LR Manual the petitioners are entitled to know the reasons for the refusal to renew their term. The petitioners have also claimed that the benefit of the judgment and order dated November 12, 1990 passed by a Bench of this Court at Allahabad in Writ petition No. 22578 of 1989 (Reported in (1990) (2) UPLBEC 1346 should be given to them, as the present writ petition is quite similar to that writ petition. The petitioners have prayed that the impugned order dated January 3, 1992 may be quashed and the opposite parties may be directed to renew the term of the petitioners as Standing Counsel.;