- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 only.
(2.) NO notice required to be given to respondent NO. 3 and no useful purpose will be served by granting time for filing counter-affidavit considering the documents annexed with the petition and the nature of the impugned order dated 24-1- 2003/annexure 8 to the writ petition. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches dealt later in this judgment but the Court deem it necessary to consider whether Legal Remembrancer is right when he mentions in the impugned order that opinion of District Judge is not required in a case where District Magistrate sends recommendation under Proviso to para 7. 03 (3) L. R. Manual. Question-whether Government is duty bound in law to have the opinion of concerned District Judge having consulted and obtained recommendation regarding 'merit' and 'suitability' of respective- 'advocates' in a District for being considered for appointment as Government Counsel'-is of significant importance because it concerns 'judicial administration' in the State and thus a matter of 'general Public-Interest' and since in the very nature of the appointment it has far-reaching consequences.
(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment and order 6-5- 2003 in the case of Virendra Pal Singh Rana v. State of U. P. and others C. M. W. P. No. 13550 of 2003 while considering para 7. 06, 7. 08, L. R. Manual observed - "we may also mention before parting with his case that over the past two or three decades a practice has arisen that whenever a new government comes it terminates the appointments of almost all the Government Counsels appointed earlier and in their places persons belonging to or affiliated to the new ruling party or their kith or kin are appointed. This is an unhealthy practice. The Court requires competent and honest Government Counsels for proper assistance. The problem however, is that many of the persons whose engagements as Government Counsel is terminated by the new Government were themselves earlier appointed on extraneous considerations because they belonged to or were affiliated to the previous Government, or were kith and kin of the members of the previous Government and knot on merit. Thus it often happens that the persons appointed by the previous Government were themselves incompetent or lacking in integrity or sound knowledge of law, and this Court will not like to interfere in terminating their engagements. However, there are many Government Counsels who were appointed on genuine considerations on their own merit, knowledge or law and integrity and competence. Termination of engagement of such persons is against the interest of society and the State Competent, honest government counsels with sound knowledge of law should be allowed to continue (unless they cross 62 years) whichever government comes to power so that there is some stability in such engagements, and they are not treated as loaves of office distributed by the ruling party. In fact if such engagements are changed frequently the best talent and competence in the bar will not be attracted to it because good lawyers would then prefer to remain in private practice rather than risk losing their private clientele in a job which is a of a precarious nature. " (underlined italic by me to lay emphasis) At the outset, salient facts of the case, which are interesting, may be noted.;