D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA
RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
By the Court.—The petitioner has, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged an order dated 7 May 2014 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Law declining to renew the engagement of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Ghazipur.
2. The case has a checkered history. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) on 26 February 1991 by the State Government. The appointment of the petitioner was not extended by an order dated 20 August 1992. In a writ petition filed by the petitioner an interim direction was issued allowing the petitioner to function, unless another incumbent had joined in his place. In pursuance of the interim order dated 2 September 1992, the petitioner was allowed to continue as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal). On 1 January 1996 a fresh appointment was made of the petitioner in pursuance of the Government Order dated 7 December 1995. On 13 March 1997 the appointment of the petitioner was renewed and he continued until 5 February 2000. The petitioner continued to work from 2000 until 25 August 2011 when his services were disengaged. The petiti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.