JUDGMENT

J. S. VERMA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Naresh Chandra Sharma respectively, were appointed Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) at Budaun in the State of Uttar Pradesh on different dates for a fixed term mentioned in the order of appointment. Their term was renewed similarly from time to time. However, a further renewal was denied to them by an order dated 1-10 1992. This was challenged by them by a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the order dated 1-10-1992 refusing to renew their term of appointment as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) for a further period was quashed. It is unnecessary to refer to the claim of respondents Nos. 4 and 5, namely Yashpal Singh Yadav and Syed Mohd. Anas Naqvi, whose similar claim in that writ petition was dismissed. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are merely proforma respondents and no further reference to them is necessary.

( 3 ) THIS appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is against the High Courts judgment allowing the writ petition of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Learned counsel for appellant- State of U. P. has assailed the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the refusal to grant renewal of the tenure as Additional District Government Counsel of respondents 1,2 and 3 was not arbitrary as held by the High Court, but for valid reasons. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that renewal of the tenure could not be claimed as a matter of right under Para 7. 08 of the U. P Legal Rememrancers Manual (for short "the Manual" ). on which the claim of these respondents for renewal of their term is based. In reply learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appointment of an advocate as a District Government Counsel under chapter VII of the Manual is an employment and not a professional engagement of an advocate and, therefore, the advocate is entitled to automatic renewal till he attains the age of 62 years prescribed in the Manual as the age of superannuation unless his record and character roll are not up to the mark. The alternative submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the refusal of renewal of the terms of these respondents, in the fact and circumstances of the case was arbitrary on account of which it was liable to be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution. Both sides have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P. , (1991) 1 SCC 212: ( AIR 1991 SC 537 ). Before we consider the question whether the refusal to grant renewal was arbitrary, it would be appropriate to consider the argument of learned counsel for the respondents about the nature of appointment since it was vehemently urged as the main argument on behalf of the respondents.

( 4 ) SHRI S. B. Sanyal. learned counsel for the respondents, to support the main argument that the appointment of an advocate as a District Government Counsel is an appointment to a post in Government service whereby the appointee is entitled to automatic renewal up to the age of superannuation subject to satisfactory confidential record, relied on the provisions in the Manual which debar the appointee from participating in Political activities and provide for maintenance of character roll in addition to a provision in para 7. 13 of the superannuation age. Reference was also made to Section 24 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure which in our opinion has no application to a case of renewal of the appointment. In Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U. P. , (1993) 3 SCC 552: (1993 AIR SCW 2843) it was held that Section 24 Cr. P. C. does not speak about the extension or renewal of the term of the Public Prosecutor and the procedure prescribed in the Manual to the extent it is not in conflict with the provision of Section