SHYAM NARAYAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of State.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the orders dated 27.10.2017 passed by the respondent no.1/Principal Secretary, Nyaya Anubhag-3, (Niyuktia), Government of U.P., Lucknow, order dated 1.11.2017 as well as notification dated 8.12.2017 issued by the respondent no.2 namely District Magistrate, Ballia, District-Ballia.

(3.) The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) in the year 1999 and he continued to perform as such upto 27.5.2014 and renewals were also granted to him after considering his work, conduct, performance and legal knowledge. The post of District Government Counsel (Criminal) in District Judgeship, Ballia fell vacant in the year 2013. In order to engage or select the Advocates having requisite qualifications and the experience on the said post, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 4.6.2014. Pursuant to the same a notification dated 16.6.2014 was issued by the respondent no.2. Pursuant to the same petitioner duly applied for the post in question, thereafter, a panel was prepared by the respondent no.2 in which name of the petitioner found place at serial no.1. The aforesaid penal was prepared after due consultation with the District Judge, Ballia. Thereafter, respondent no.2 forwarded the application of the petitioner along-with the comments to the respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 vide Order dated 25.4.2016 appointed the petitioner on the post in question for one year, i.e., upto 24.4.2017. Before the aforesaid term was going to expire an application was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 for renewal of his term. He forwarded the same before the respondent no.1 for the grant of renewal in terms of the relevant rules. The respondent no.1 vide its order dated 27.10.2017 rejected the renewal application of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, respondent no.2 passed consequential order dated 1.11.2017 directing the petitioner to hand over the charge to Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal). Subsequently, another notification was issued by the respondent no.2 on 8.12.2017 inviting applications from the Advocates for their engagement as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal). The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders.