Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

(I) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned order/letter No. D-1948/7-Nyaya-3-12-1(63)/2001 dated 31.10.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3 so far as it relates to the petitioners shown at serial Nos. 18, 19 and 20.

(II) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant renewal to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Civil), Varanasi and petitioner No. 3 on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Varanasi;

(III) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Civil), Varanasi and petitioner No. 3 on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Varanasi; and

(IV) Any other, writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case.

2. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it will be appropriate to recapitulate the glaring facts of the present case for its proper adjudication by this Court, which are as under :

3. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel (Civil), Varanasi [hereinafter referred as A.D.G.C.(Civil)] by the State Government vide order dated 27.2.1999. Thereafter he was given renewal for a period of three years by the State Government vide G.O. dated 21.8.2000, which was operative till 20.8.2003 on the recommendation of the District Judge and District Magistrate, Varanasi respectively. Subsequently, there were continuous recommendations by the District Judge and the District Magistrate, Varanasi for the renewal of the petitioner as A.D.G.C.(Civil), Varanasi but no decision was taken by the State Government and same was kept pending without any justification. Lastly, petitioner No. 1 again submitted an application for renewal of his term on 22.2.2010 with the statement of work in Form IX duly recommended by the District Judge and the District Magistrate but no decision was taken and petitioner No. 1 continued to discharge his duties as A.D.G.C. (civil), Varanasi.

4. The petitioner No. 1 has relied on the power of attorney executed by the Registrar General of this Court whereby the District Judge, Varanasi was nominated as lawful attorney on behalf of Registrar General of this Court to do and perform or cause to be done, executed and performed all or any of the acts, deeds and things in all the cases pertaining to land of Civil Court, Varanasi including Case No. 928 of 1988. Under clause -3 of the said power of attorney the District Judge, Varanasi was empowered to engage and appoint any solicitor, Advocate or Advocates or counsel to act and plead and otherwise conduct this case. In pursuance of this power of attorney, District Judge, Varanasi appointed/authorised the petitioner No. 1 to conduct various cases with regard to properties of Civil Court, Varanasi vide different authority. The petitioner No. 1 was also engaged to carry out the work of District Government Counsel (Civil), Varanasi for 15 days vide order dated 14.6.2012 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, (Varanasi) issued in pursuance of the order dated 13.6.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi. The District Magistrate, Varanasi, vide its letter dated 20.6.2012 recommended for continuation of the petitioner No. 1 on the post of District Government Counsel (Civil), Varanasi till regular appointment was made.

5. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as A.D.G.C. (Civil), Varanasi for one year and thereafter his term was renewed vide G.Os. dated 28.11.1992,13.5.1996 and 28.5.1999 respectively. The petitioner No. 2 was given the charge o