By the Court.—We have heard Shri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.

2. Shiv Sevak Ram-the writ petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of U.P. on 28.10.1983, and started practice in the District Court, Allahabad. With the formation of a new district Kaushambi, carved out from revenue district Allahabad, the petitioner shifted his practice to the District Court at Kaushambi, where he was appointed as District Government Counsel (Civil), by the State Government vide letter of the Special Secretary and Additional Legal Remembrancer Cell dated 12.10.2000. The appointment was made with a condition that his engagement can be terminated by the State Government at any time without information and giving any reasons, and that the petitioner should given an undertaking to that effect to the District Magistrate that he will have no objection to such condition.

3. The petitioner’s engagement as District Government Counsel (Civil) was renewed on 12.8.2001, 9.4.2008 and lastly on 28.4.2011 by the State Government, on the recommendations of the District Judge and the District Magistrate, Kaushambi.

4. In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved with an order dated 20.2.2013 passed by the State Government informing the District Magistrate, and a communication received by the petitioner from the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, to terminate his engagement as District Government Counsel (Civil), on the advice given by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi to the State Government that the petitioner has not taken effective steps to prosecute the cases for the State Government and has not taken the desired interest in the disposal of cases; he takes parts in the meetings but does not discuss the current cases, nor keeps the District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate informed with the pending cases, and that the speed of disposal of the cases handled by him is highly unsatisfactory, and consequently it is not desirable for him to continue on the post.

5. The orders of disengagement and its communication to the petitioner, have been challenged on the ground that the reasons given in the order are not factually correct. The petitioner has been effectively prosecuting the cases for the State. The successive District Magistrates have appreciated the efforts made by him in disposal of the cases. It is submitted that the petitioner has not lost any case in which he had appeared for the State Government, on account of his negligence or in taking required interest in prosecuting the case.

6. It is submitted that the District Magistrate has not given the details of the cases in which the petitioner may not have taken interest. The petitioner has been regularly informing the District Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate with the progress of the cases for and against the State, and that he has participated in the meeting regularly in which the cases filed against the State Government were discussed. The petitioner has annexed the minutes of the meeting dated 27th August, 2012 in which he had participated, and which disclose that the petitioner had informed the District Magistrate, Kaushambi chairing the meeting and all other officers, that inspite of repeated instructions given to the Sub Divisional Officers, the Lekhpals, are not appearing in the Courts. The District Magistrate issued directions to the Sub Divisional Officers to ensure that the Lekhpals appear in the Court to prosecute the cases. There is no adverse comment on the work and conduct of the petitioner in the minutes of the meeting.

7. Shri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Para 7.08 of the L.R. Manual relevant for renewal of the term of District Government Counsel, provides that the District Officer shall after consulting the District Judge and considering his past record of work, conduct and age report to the Legal Reme