Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by respondent no. 1, whereby the claim of the petitioners for renewal of term on the post of ADGC (Criminal) has been rejected by a non speaking order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 35854 (MB) of 2018 (Jai Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary Law Department, Lucknow and Others). The operative portion of the order reads as under:-
"54. In view of the discussions made above, we are inclined to accept the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. However a direction to renew the term is not given rather for that, direction is given to the competent authority for fresh consideration. The consideration of each case would be with application of mind. It would be in fair and transparent manner. If the competent authority finds reason to deny renewal, it would be recorded separately in the file, if not to be disclosed in the order but then the material should exist for denial. In case of acceptance of application of renewal, it would be after taking note of the vacancy of District Government Counsel/Additional District Government Counsel/Deputy Government Counsel/Assistant Government Counsel. In case the Government takes a decision to renew and in absence of the vacancies, engagement cannot be made to adjust the petitioners then it would be against the first available vacancy. The direction given above would not affect the engagement, if any made during the pendency of the writ petition and at the same time, it is clarified that merely for that reason, the Government would not reject the candidature of the petitioners for renewal even after it is made out rather it would go with the appropriate arrangement, as given above."
Learned Counsel for the petitioners requested that the similar benefit may be given to the present petitioners.
Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the aforesaid.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in identical matter, as stated above, writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment and order dated 19.11.19. The petitioners shall be entitled to the same benefit.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
. .
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Jyoti/-