K.C. Bhargava, J. - (1.) Petitioner, Jagannath Prasad Shukla, was working as District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat. In the year 1978 he was appointed as District Government Counsel (Criminal) Non-Metropolitan Area Kanpur. Thereafter his term was extended in 1979 for three years. In 1982 his term was renewed for one year and lastly in 1983 his term was extended for three years up to 28th August, 1986. After expiry of the term of the petitioner on 28th August, 1986, he was allowed to continue as such. On 25th May, 1987 the appointment of the petitioner as District Govt. Counsel (Criminal) was terminated vide order contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition. This order of termination of his appointment has been challenged by means of this writ petition. It has been mentioned by the petitioner that opposite party No.4 in collusion with opposite party No. 3 got the appointment of the petitioner terminated so that he may be appointed as District Government Counsel (Criminal). It may be mentioned that opposite party No. 3, Sri Nagendra Singh, was at the relevant time Minister for Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh. It is also alleged that no adverse entry or material was ever communicated to the petitioner during his tenure as District Government Counsel (Criminal). It is further alleged that the order of termination of appointment of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing violates the guidelines and norms as contained in the L. R. Manual; it is also violative of the principles of natural justice and the order of termination is unreasonable and utterly discriminatory as it does not disclose any reason for passing the order. The petition is opposed on behalf of opposite party No. 4. It was contended that after termination of the petitioner as District Government Counsel (Criminal) one Sri Shyam Mohan Sharma was placed in charge of the post of District Government Counsel (Criminal). There was no mala fide or collusion between the opposite parties 3 and 4 in getting the petitioner removed from the office of the District Government Counsel (Criminal). The said order of termination of the appointment of the petitioner is not in contravention of any provisions of the L. R. Manual and the order was passed after due consideration of the merit of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the opposite party No. 4 is not a close associate of opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 never influenced the decision of the Government in withholding the renewal of the petitioner. The State Government has also filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner and has alleged that opposite parties 3 and 4 have nothing to do with the discontinuation from the engagement of the petitioner as District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat. His appointment was discontinued after a bona fide appraisal of the reports of the then District Judge and the then District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat. It is further alleged that there is no question of communicating the confidential reports to the petitioner. The term of the petitioner was not renewed as adverse reports had been sent by the District Officer to the Government for not renewing the term of the petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the provisions of pars 7.08 of the L.R. Manual were not complied with in the present case. For the sake of convenience the provisions of para 7.08 of the L.R. Manual are reproduced as under:- "7.08. Renewal of term- (1) At least three months before the expiry of the term of a District Government Counsel, the District Officer shall after consulting the District Judge and considering his past record of work, conduct and age, report to the Legal Remembrancer, together with the statement of work done by him in Form No.9 whether in his opinion the term of appointment of such counsel should be renewed or not. A copy of the opinion of the District Judge should also be sent along with the recommendations of the District Officer. (2) Where recommendation for the extension of the term of a District Government Counsel is made for a specified period only, the reasons therefore shall also be stated by the District Officer. (3) While forwarding his recommendation for renewal of the term of a District Government Counsel- (i) the District Judge shall give an estimate of the quality of the counsel work from the judicial stand point, keeping in view the different aspects of a lawyer's capacity as it is manifested before him in conducting State cases, and specially his professional conduct; (ii) the District Officer shall give his report about the suitability of the District Government Counsel from the administrative point of view, his public reputation in general, his character, integrity and professional conduct. (4) If the Government agrees with the recommendations of the District Officer for the renewal of the term of the Government Counsel, it may pass orders for re-appointing him for a period not exceeding three years. (5) If the Government decides not to reappoint a Government Counsel, the Legal Remembrancer may call upon the District Officer to forward fresh recommendations in the manner laid down in para 7.03. (6) The procedure prescribed in this para shall be followed on the expiry of every successive period of renewed appointment of a District Government Counsel. Note : The renewal beyond 60 years of age shall depend upon continuous good work, sound integrity and physical fitness of the counsel." A perusal of this provision goes to show that the District Officer after consulting the District Judge has to send his report to the Government. In doing so the District Officer has to consider the past record of the work, conduct, public reputation in general, his character, integrity and professional conduct. A statement of work in Form No. 9 is also to be sent to the Government. He has to give his opinion as to whether on these facts the term of the District Government Counsel has to be renewed or not. In the present case we find, from the averments made in the counter affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 2, that a report from the then District Judge and the then District Officer was sent to the State Government along with the opinion of the District Officer. After considering this report the State Government declined to extend the term of the petitioner. We find that in the present case the State Government after perusing the report of the District Officer has taken a decision in accordance with para 7.08 of the L.R. Manual and has not renewed the term of the petitioner. It cannot be said that the action of the State Government is arbitrary in any manner.
(3.) The next ground of the petitioner is that opposite party No. 3 exercised his influence in collusion with opposite party No. 4 and did not get the renewal of the term of the applicant materialised. Except the petitioner' averment there is no evidence on record to support this contention. As mentioned in the earlier para of the judgment the opposite party No. 3 at that time was Minister of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh. He was not the Law Minister and it is well known that the renewal of the District Government Counsel is not done by the Agriculture Minister, it is done on the recommendation of the Law Minister. Therefore in the absence of any evidence on record it cannot be said that the opposite party No. 3 in any way influence the decision of the State Government with regard to the petitioner in collusion with opposite party No. 4. This contention of the petitioner also fails.;