B.K. Roy, Raj Kumar Mahajan, JJ. - (1.) THE prayer of petitioner is to quash the order of the State Government as contained in the letter dated 10.6.1992 of the Joint Secretary (sic) L.R. to the D.M., Gorakhpur to the effect that the writ petitioner who is Special Government Counsel (Urban Ceiling) should not be retained because of his completion of 62 years of age and in his place proposal for appointment of a new incumbent be sent. Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition, contended that since the petitioner was a Special Counsel and not a D.G.C. therefore, there is no question of his retirement after completion of 62 years of age and in this regard the Government has wrongly placed reliance on the Rules made for D.G.C. and not for the Special Counsel.
(2.) SRI P.K. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents contended that under Chapter IX, Rule 9.48 of L.R. Manual the engagement of a Special Counsel can be terminated at any point of time and it was privilege of the Government not to continue to take work from its counsel and in doing so it cannot be urged that the Government action was arbitrary and/or otherwise malafide. Mr. Upadhya, in reply contended that the argument of Mr. Bisaria has got no force inasmuch as the appointment of the petitioner has been terminated by relying upon the rules meant for D.G.C. (Criminal) who superannuates at the age of 62 years.
(3.) THE question before us is as to whether it is a fit case in which this court should exercise its jurisdiction. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this court the petitioner has continued till today. In 1992 petitioner was 62 years of age and thereby by now he has attained the age of 68 years. Rules 9.48 of Chapter IX of L.R. Manual are crystal clear that a Special Counsel can be terminated at any point of time without assigning any reason whatsoever. The question of engagement of a counsel by the State is the question of trust of the State in its counsel. The counsel cannot come and make a complaint that State should be commanded to retain him as its counsel. It is also well settled that if a source of power can be traced in that event the exercise of that power under a different provision will not vitiate the order. This apart, we find from the statements made in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that the work of petitioner as a Special Counsel was not found satisfactory and up to the mark. In this regard Sri Upadhyay contended that we should not rely upon this statement since a copy of this counter affidavit has not been served on him. The endorsement on the top page of the stay vacation application with which the counter affidavit is attached, shows that the copy was received by his (Sri Upadhyaya's) clerk as early as on 29.7.97 i.e. to say about a year ago. There is no denial of the fact before us about the non satisfaction of the State from the work of petitioner. We, accordingly do not hesitate in rejecting this Writ Petition, which we hereby do so.;