DINESH NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions have been filed by one Sri Dinesh Nath Pandey. Since the main issue involved in these petitions is in respect of renewal of the term of the petitioner on the post of Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal), the same have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment and order. In order to decide the controversy involved in these petitions, it is necessary to have a glance to the factual aspect of the matter at first.

(2.) The facts giving rise to Writ Petition No. 44238 of 2004, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal), hereinafter referred to as the 'A.D.G.C. (Criminal) for 15 days in district Sant Ravidas Nagar vide order dated 18.2.1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar on the recommendation of the then District Judge keeping in view the provisions contained in Paras 7-10 of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual (in short 'L.R. Manual'). Thereafter, the period of engagement of the petitioner on the said post was extended by the State Government for a further period of one year vide order dated 23.4.1999 passed by the Special Secretary (Law) and Additional L.R., U.P. Government, Lucknow. The term of the petitioner was further extended for a period of three years, i.e., up to 12.5.2003, vide order dated 12.5.2000. However, while extending the term of the petitioner up to 12.5.2003, by inadvertence, the designation of the petitioner was shown as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), therefore, a letter was issued on 2nd June, 2000 that the designation of the petitioner shown as Assistant District Government Counsel (Counsel) in the renewal order dated 12.5.2000 be read as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal).

(3.) It appears from the record that the State Government by Government Order dated 22.12.2001 amended the provisions contained in Paras 7.08 and 7.13 of the L.R. Manual extending the term of those A.D.G.Cs. (Criminal), who were appointed for a period of three years and whose term was to expire prior to or by 21.12.2004, up to 5 years. However, by subsequent Government Order dated 11.12.2002, the Government Order dated 22.12.2001 was amended and the period of 5 years was reduced to 3 years. Thus, from the record, it is apparent that the appointment of the petitioner as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) was up to 12.5.2003. However, it appears that the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar, considering the work, conduct and performance of the petitioner as A.D.G.C. (Criminal), requested for a report from the District Judge, Bhadohi vide letter dated 22.2.2003 and the District Judge, in turn, submitted his report vide letter dated 16.4.2003. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi vide letter dated 3.5.2003 recommended the name of the petitioner for renewal as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) alongwith other incumbents to the State Government. Since no response was received from the State Government thereon, the District Magistrate again wrote a letter on 22nd November, 2003 to the Secretary concerned recommending the name of the petitioner alongwith others for renewal/extension of term as A.D.G.C. (Criminal).