Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been preferred challenging the constitutional validity of Section 2 of U.P. Act No. 18 of 1991 i.e., Code of Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1991, whereby, sub-section (1) of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended and sub-section (4), (5), (6) of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short CrPC), has been omitted alongwith the provisions contained in sub-section (7) by which sub-section (6) has been referred to.

2. The petitioner has also assailed the Circular dated 13.8.2008 by which the Government of U.P., has amended the L.R. Manual to the extent it provides the consultation with the District Judge mandatory for appointment on the post of District Government Counsels alongwith consequential action.

3. The present writ petitions were part of the bunch of writ petitions whereby, the Circular dated 13.8.2008 has been impugned, the leading one of which is Writ Petition No. 7851 (M/B) of 2008: U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti v. State of U.P., decided by separate judgment and order dated 6.1.2012. Keeping in view the fact that vires of U.P. Amendment (supra), has been impugned in the present writ petitions, it is decided by the present separate judgment.

4. The appointment of District Government Counsels in the State of U.P., has been drawing the attention of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time particularly, after the impugned amendment done by the State Government to acquire unfettered discretion and to regulate the appointment of District Government Counsels as well as the standing counsels of the High Court by executive instructions issued from time to time compiled in the name and title of “Legal Remembrancer Manual” (in short the LR manual). After a lot of discussion and reports at various levels, inviting opinions from different sections of society and the Governmental bodies including the report of Law Commission, the Parliament by Act No. 2 of 1974, promulgated the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CrPC) to keep pace with time and discharge its obligations within the constitutional scheme relieving the country from the outlived colonial, Code of Criminal Procedure namely, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

But it appears that the Government of U.P. under the garb of LR manual, later on, to acquire unfettered discretion in the matter of appointment of District Government Counsels by the impugned amendment, tried to restore the rusted “colonial spoiled system”.

5. The petitioner for the first time, was duly appointed and selected as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) Budaun. On 23.5.1994 for the period of one year. The appointment was duly renewed from time to time. The renewal was done in pursuance of the recommendation of the District Judge and District Magistrate from time to time. Being the seniormost, Additional District Government Counsel, the petitioner officiated as District Government Counsel (Criminal) from time to time and continuously held the post since April, 2008 to May, 2010. According to petitioner’s counsel, one local MLA of District Budaun, Yogendra Sagar who was the accused in the case of rape of a girl under Case Crime No. 378/2008, approached the petitioner for help. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun by his order dated 18.8.2009, summoned the MLA (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition No. 4097 (M/B) of 2011). A Criminal Revision No. 271/2009 was filed by one of the accused against the sumoning order in the Court of Sessions Judge, Budaun and at the time, the petitioner was working as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal). The petitioner opposed the revision vehemently. In consequence thereof, the Criminal Revision was dismissed by the District Judge, by the order dated 7.10.2009 (Annexure 6 to this writ petition). In consequence thereof on 13.10.2009, the MLA submitted some com