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 petitioner was a party to writ proceedings before the Lucknow Bench (Writ Petition No. 4851 (M/B) of 2011). The writ petition together with a connected batch of petitions was allowed on 6 January 2012. The Division Bench at Lucknow inter alia quashed a Government Order dated 13 August 2008 to the extent to which it had amended the L.R. Manual deleting the consultation process of the District Judge. Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court. The State Government took a policy decision to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions. A clarification was issued by the Supreme Court on 17 July 2012 in regard to the manner in which renewals/re-consideration/appointments would be made by the concerned authority. Following the order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner was allowed to join as an Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) on 2 July 2012.

3. The District Judge, Ghazipur by a communication dated 1 November 2012 addressed to the District Magistrate certified the character and performance of the petitioner. The District Magistrate also submitted a report dated 12 November 2012 favourably recommending the renewal of the term of the petitioner. However, a decision was taken not to renew the engagement of the petitioner. This was the subject-matter of an earlier Writ Petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36852 of 2013) filed by the petitioner.

4. By a judgment and order dated 21 October 2013, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on the ground that there was an absence of reasons which rendered the decision arbitrary and the decision was not in consonance with the provisions of paras 7.06 to 7.08 of the L.R. Manual. The decision was quashed and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

5. Following the earlier order of remand, a fresh order has been passed by the Deputy Secretary on 7 May 2014. The Deputy Secretary has declined to renew the engagement of the petitioner on the following grounds :

(i) the recommendation of the District Judge and the District Magistrate was not in accordance with para 7.08(3) of the Manual;

(ii) for the period between January 2008 to December 2010, the rate of success of the petitioner was 63.02% in the sessions trials conducted by him which was not of a high order;

(iii) during the aforesaid period, the petitioner had conducted only one Criminal Appeal which had been dismissed; and

(iv) during the period January 2011 to August 2012, the success rate of the petitioner was 58.33% in the sessions trials conducted by him which was not of a high order.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the reasons which have been furnished for declining to renew the engagement of the petitioner are ex facie, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the