- (1.) BRIJESH Kumar, ACJ. This bunch of writ petitions pertains to the non-renewal of the term of the Government Counsels of different districts. Some of the petitioners had been working as District Government Counsel or as Additional District Government counsel for a quite long period. The State, on expiry of their term of appointment as Government Counsel refused renewal. In one of the petitions, the grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being given extension nor his case for that purpose has been considered according to the provisions contained in the L. R. Manual. We propose to deal with individual cases on merits in the latter part of the judgment. Since the other questions raised are common to all the petitions, we have heard all these petitions together and propose to dispose them all by this order.
(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that action of the opposite parties is arbitrary in refusing to renew their term. It is also their case that the opposite parties should have acted in ac cordance with the provisions contained in the L. R. Manual taking into consideration the opinion and recommendation of the District Judge and the District Magistrate of the district concerned. On behalf of the State, Learned Counsel Sri A. K. Verma has raised a preliminary objection that the petitions are not maintainable. The stand of the state is that engagement of a Counsel by a client is a matter within the choice and discretion of the client and the same would apply in relation to the State Counsel as well, where their services are requisitioned by the State as a client for its work and for a specified period. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that after deletion of sub-sec tions (4), (5) and (6) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by means of U. P. Amendment Act, 1991 (U. P. Act No. 18 of 1991), with effect from 16-2-1991, the appointment of District Government Counsel (Criminal) is no more statutory in nature. So far the provisions contained in the L. R. Manual are concerned, they do not have statutory force, they are for the purposes of internal guidelines for the State in the matter of engagement of District Government Counsels and Addition al District Government Counsels.
(3.) SECTION 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the public prosecutors. Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) read as follows: "section 24 (4) The District Magistrate shall in consultation with the Session Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. (5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district un less his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub section (4 ). (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), where in a State there exists a regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting such cadre: Provided that where, in the opinion of the State Government, no suitable per son is available in such cadre for such ap pointment that Government may appoint a person as Public Prosecutor or Addition al Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, from the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4 ). " The above quoted sub-sections have been deleted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act (No. 18 of 1991) with effect from 16-2-1991. A reference to the statement of ob jects and reasons of U. P. Amendment Act No. 18 of 1991 has also been made to, which says that with a view to avoid delays in the appointment of Public Prosecutors and enabling the State Government to ap point Public Prosecutors of its choice, it was decided to amend Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its applica tion to Uttar Pradesh. Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 24 have, thus been deleted. It is submitted that there is no statutory requirement to consider the recommendations of the District Magis trate in the matter of preparation of a panel for appointment of Public Prosecutors. After the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is submitted that Chapter XXI has been added in the L. R. Manual.;