The appointment and renewal of government advocates must adhere to the statutory provisions and rules of the U.P. L.R. Manual, and the authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order while considering applications for renewal.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned advertisement dated 22nd october, 2003 (Annexure-2) and the preceding Government Order dated 27th September, 2003 (Annexure-3), providing for appointment of D. G. C. (Criminal) and Additional Government advocate in District Ballia.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances, giving rise to this case are that petitioners No. 1 to 4 were appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), vide order dated 27th July, 1992 and petitioner No. 5 as Additional Government Advocate vide order dated 3rd August, 1992 in district Ballia (Annexures-4 and 5), for a period of one year, i. e. , upto 31st July, 1993. Their appointment had been renewed from time to time. Last renewal was made on 30th October, 2000 for a period of three years, i. e. , upto 29th October, 2003 by the State Government. Instead of renewing the cases of the petitioners, an advertisement dated 22nd October, 2003 (Annexure-2)has been issued in pursuance of the Government Order dated 27th September, 2003 (Annexure-3) inviting applications for the said post under Para 7. 03 of the U. P. Legal remembrancer Manual (hereinafter called the l. R. Manual ). This petition has been filed for quashing the same contending that the petitioners have a right of being considered for renewal under the provisions of the said L. R. Manual.

( 3 ) SHRI Yogesh Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once, the petitioners had been appointed under the provisions of the L. R. Manual and Section 24 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the question of non-consideration of their cases for renewal amounts to violation of the statutory provisions and therefore, the said advertisement and the government Order are liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioners, had been appointed in 1992 and continued for more than a decade. In the mean while, many lawyers had fulfilled the eligibility and they are also entitled to be considered for the said post. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that vacancies cannot be filled up by considering the cases as fresh and restricting the vacancies to be fill up by renewal, would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, qua those Advocates who have attained eligibility after appointments of the petitioners. More so, renewal is also a mode of appointment and if petitioners are interested to continue on the post, they can apply afresh but they cannot claim relief sought in the petition and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) THE learned Standing Counsel did not ask for time to file counter-affidavit, rather suggested that as the issue involved herein is a pure question of law, i. e. , entitlement of the petitioners for renewal of their term, the matter be heard finally. We accepted the suggestion made by the learned Standing Counsel.

( 7 ) THE relevant provisions for our consideration are Section 24 of the Code of Criminal procedure and Paras 7. 03, 7. 06 and 7. 08 of the U. P. L. R. Manual. Section 24 of the Cr. P. C. reads as under :-"

24. Public Prosecutors.-- (1) For every High Court, the Central Government or the State government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or State government, as the case, may be. (4) The District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion, fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional public Prosecutors for the District. (5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor of Additional publ