- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. The grievance of the petitioner, who claims to be a panel lawyer whose term has already expired, is that without deciding his case fore tension/renewal of his term the respondents have issued an advertisement on 12-10-1995 inviting applications from the Advocates for appointment as panel lawyers for Gaon Sabhas of Tahsil Jamaniya and Saidpur district Ghazipur. Petitioner has stated that he alongwilh other Advocates has applied pursuant to the said advertisement and those appli cations are still pending. Without waiting for the Government order appointing panel lawyer, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for writ or mandamus directing the respondents to extend his term as panel lawyer, further prayer directing the respondents not to interfere with his working as panel lawyer, has also been made.
(2.) SUPREME Court in State of U. P. v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, (1995) 6 SCC 527, has held that the appointment of Government counsel is only a professional engagement of a legal practitioner and it is not an appointment to a post in the Government service. As such an appointment is only a professional engagement, it is open to the Government to with draw the brief from its counsel by terminating his engagement or by not extending his term. The Government has discretion to appoint or not to appoint an Advocate as its counsel. Similarly it is open to the Government to extend or not to extend the term of the Government counsel. Unless the Government's action is illegal or arbitrary or is based on extraneous consi derations, it cannot be interferred with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. No such ground has been made out by the petitioner in the instant case. When the Government has instead of extending the term of the petitioner, invited applications from Advocates for appointment as panel lawyer it is apparent that the petitioner's request for extension of term has been rejected. Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief so far as the extension of his term and his working as panel lawyer is concerned. But as the petitioner has also applied in response to the advertisement men tioned before, his case is liable to be considered, if not already considered, alongwith orders in accordance with law, for appointment as panel lawyer expeditiously. We order accordingly. With the above observations this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;