JUDGMENT

R.N. Gurtu, J. - This is a writ petition by Prithwi Nath Chowdhry. The petitioner even prior to the 16th April, 1957 was Additional Government Advocate in the High Court of Judicature Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow and by a notification No. 727 (a) VIII-37257 dated 18th April, 1957, he was reappointed Additional Government Advocate, Lucknow Bench, for a period of three years with effect from the 16th April, 1957. At the time of the original appointment and of re-appointment of the petitioner as Additional Government Advocate there was no age limit prescribed by the U. P. Law Officers Rules, 1942, which were and are the rules applicable to the petitioner. By notification No. 6349|VII-889 of 1957 dated 20th December, 1957, Rule 7 of the U. P. State Law Officers Rules was substituted by a new Rule 7. That new rule provided for superannuation at the age of 60. The petitioner, who was to attain the age of 60 years on the 25th August, 1958, in July, 1958 heard a rumour that the State Government had asked the High Court to recommend names of Advocates for appointment as Additional Government Advocate for the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner then had an interview with the Hon'ble Minister of Justice U. P. and submitted to him that the new Rule 7 would have no application to the petitioner and in pursuance of the interview also submitted a written representation to the Hon'ble Minister of Justice U. P. on the 20th July, 1958. Thereafter the petitioner received a communication dated 10th September, 1958, from the opposite-party to the effect that his term of appointment as Additional Government Advocate had expired on the 25th August, 1958, on his attaining the age of 60 years, but that the Governor was pleased to allow him to work till a final decision was taken on his representation. Later on the 24th September, 1958, a further communication was received from the opposite-party stating that the petitioner's representation for being allowed to work till the 15th April, 1960, had been rejected and that it had been decided to appoint Sri Debi Prasad Uniyal, the then Deputy Government Advocate, High Court, in his place with effect from the 1st October, 1958, and that the petitioner should make over charge to him.

2. Upon these allegations the petitioner has come to this Court and he prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other suitable writ, direction or order to be issued quashing the order dated 24th September, 1958, above referred to.

3. The facts sworn to by the petitioner, as stated hereinbefore, were not disputed in counter affidavit, which was filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh by one A. B. Buck, Assistant Secretary to Government, U. P. Judicial Department Lucknow.

4. The petitioner's case is that the re-appointment of the petitioner being to a tenure post for a fixed term of three years, the petitioner had an absolute right to hold the post of Additional Government Advocate till the 16th April, 1960, and that he was subject to removal only in accordance with the U. P. State law Officer Rules, 1942, as they existed at the time of his said reappointment. The petitioner contends that his said re-appointment in April 1957 having been made at a time when no age limits were prescribed for retirement from the posts of law officers the petitioner could not be removed from the said post before the expiry of three years from the 6th April, 1957, except in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules. The petitioner contends that the new superannuation Rule 7 which was substituted for the old Rule 7 did not and could not in terms apply to the petitioner and that the order of his removal from his post of Additional Government Advocate with effect from the 1st October, 1958, is without jurisdiction. He contends that the new Rule 7 cannot be given retrospective effect and is only a prospective rule. Further he contends that inasmuch as there was no power in the Governor to terminate his servic