Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
2. This writ petition has been filed, seeking following reliefs:-
1- ;g fd foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk foi{kh la[;k 1 dh vuqefr ls tkjh 'kklukns'k la[;k Mh0 [email protected] & U;k;&3& 21&01¼39½ 2001 fnukafdr 08-02-2021 layXud la[;k 1 Tkksfd fof/k fo#) fcuk dkj.k crk;s o euekus <+x ls fcuk egkeghe jkT;iky dh Lohd`fr fy;s fd;k x;k gS] dks fujLr djus dh d`ik djsA 2- ;g fd ;kph o mlds lkFk ds gVk;s x;s 'kkldh; vf/koDrkvksa ds LFkku ij fdlh izdkj dh fu;qfDRk ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn }kjk ;kfpdk la[;k lh&[email protected] esa fnukad 03-08-2017 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds izdk'k esa jksd yxkus dh d`ik djs] foi{kh la[;k 1 o 2 dks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds izdk'k esa fn;s x;s fn'kk funsZ'kks dk ikyu djus ds fy;s vknsf'kr djus dh d`ik djs rFkk izeq[k lfpo U;k; ,oa fof/k ijke'khZ dks e; tuin yfyriqj dh i=koyh ds lkFk ryc djus dh d`ik djsA 3- vU; dksbZ vkns'k vFkok funsZ'k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s nsus dh d`ik djsA
3. Vide impugned order dated 8th February, 2021 the State Government has informed the District Magistrate, Lalitpur that renewal of term of Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal and Civil) has been refused, including renewal of term of the petitioner, who was earlier working as A.D.G.C. (Criminal).
4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the petition. He has placed reliance upon paragraph-20 of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and another, (2016) 15 SCC 289, which on reproduction reads as under:-
"20. It is beyond cavil that it is in the interest of the dispensation of criminal justice that competent counsel possessing integrity should alone be appointed, since otherwise, there is a strong possibility of miscarriage of justice. In choosing them, the State will not only have to be satisfied of their forensic competence, but also that they are bereft of any criminal antecedents. This, however, does not mean that the persons presently discharging the duties of Additional District Government Counsel, Assistant District Government Counsel, panel lawyers and Sub-District Government Counsel stand appointed to civil posts, thereby creating a right of continuity. In our opinion, which is an echo of that articulated in Johri Mal [State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714] , the State, like any other litigant, must have the freedom to appoint counsel in whom they repose trust and confidence. The only expectation is that the choice made by the State should not be such as could defeat the sacred and onerous responsibility of ensuring that the justice is meted out to all citizens. In Johri Mal [State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714] , this Court has categorically rejected the claim of an advocate to continuous renewal or reappointment as a government advocate. We entirely agree with this exposition of the law. We think that the correct approach is to ensure the competency of advocates being considered for appointment of Additional District Government Counsel, Assistant District Government Counsel, panel lawyers and Sub-District Government Counsel. It seems to us that it would be an incorrect approach to start this process by considering the reappointment or renewal of existing government counsel since that would dilute, nay, dissolve the discretion of the Government to appoint advocates whom they find trustworthy. The High Court has followed the second approach leading to the dissatisfaction of the State Government and their resentment that their realm of discretion has been eroded for no justifiable reason."
5. Considering the above, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has no vested right to claim renewal of the post in question by way of filing writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
[D.K. Singh, J.] [R.R. Awasthi, J.] Order Date :- 12.8.2021 MVS/-