The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of experience in the legal profession, the arbitrary nature of the impugned order, and the adherence to the legal principles established in previous cases regarding the appointment and renewal of a District Government Counsel's term.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26. 8. 2000 passed by the State Government whereby he has been disengaged from the post of District Government Counsel (Civil ). Ballia.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as District Government counsel (Civil), Ballia (hereinafter referred to as D. G. C.), on 15. 3. 1983 for a period of one year. On account of his satisfactory performance, his appointment was extended for a period of three years by the order dated 7. 6. 1984. After the expiry of the term on 1. 4. 1987, a panel of names was sent by the District Magistrate in consultation with the District Judge, Ballia, in which the name of the petitioner was on the top. The Government did not act upon the recommendation of the district Magistrate, and three panels were sent in the period 1987 to 1989 and finally the government acted on the 4th panel and appointed the petitioner as D. G. C. for one year on 1. 9. 1989. Before the expiry of the term of the petitioner, the State Government issued a general notification on 6. 2. 1990 whereby, all the State counsel working on civil, criminal and revenue side were disengaged. This order of the State Government was challenged by an association of d. G. C. as well as by several other D. G. C. in the High Court by filing writ petitions, which were dismissed by a Division Bench on 30. 4. 1990 and the Judgment is in Triloki Nath Pandey and etc. v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1990 All 143. Against the said judgment. Special Leave petitions were preferred in the Supreme Court and some writ petitions were directly filed under article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court passed an interim order staying the Judgment of the High Court and finally allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the State Government dated 6. 2. 1990. The judgment of the Supreme Court is in Km. Shrilekha Vidyartht v. State of U. P. , AIR 1991 SC 537. The petitioner, therefore, continued to function as D. G. C. even after completion of one year when the term of his appointment came to an end on 29. 9. 1990. The district Magistrate in consultation with District Judge, Ballia, recommended the name of the petitioner for extension of his term for a period of three years but the Government took no action, However, the District Magistrate, Ballia, passed an order on 16. 3. 1991 that such State counsel whose term had not been extended, shall not be allowed to function and their term shall be deemed to have come to an end. The petitioner then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9319 of 1991 in the High Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 16. 3. 1991 of the District magistrate. Ballia, in which the petitioner was directed to file a supplementary affidavit on 5. 4. 1991 and no interim order was passed in his favour. However, in the meantime, the State government issued an order dated 14. 5. 1991 directing that in view of the stay order passed on 7. 5. 1991 by the Supreme Court, all State counsel shall be allowed to continue. Thereafter, the district Magistrate. Ballia, passed another order on 3. 6. 1991 specifically stating that the position as it stood prior to 28. 2. 1990 shall be restored and the petitioner shall continue to function as d. G. C. Shortly thereafter, the State Government filed counter-affidavit in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 9319 of 1991 on 5. 9. 1991 wherein, it was specifically stated that so far the petitioner had not been disengaged by the State Government and he shall continue to work till the renewal of his term is refused in terms of procedure prescribed in para 7. 06 of L. R. Manual. The case of the petitioner further is that as the District Magistrate had himself passed an order on 3. 6. 1991 to the effect that the petitioner shall continue to function as D. G. C. , the Writ Petition no. 9319 of 1991 filed by him had become infructuous and, therefore, he did not pursue the same and it was dismissed in default on 1. 12