1. Heard Shri O.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Virendra Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sandeep Dixit, Special Counsel, assisted by Shri Amitabh Roy, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Counsel for the private respondent (Shri Rahul Upadhyay).

2. In writ petition No. 3879 (M/B) of 2008, the petitioner, inter-alia has challenged the correctness of the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the State Government, whereby the renewal of term of the petitioner as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal), Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as "ADGC") has been refused. The aforesaid order dated 8.4.2008 was served upon the petitioner through the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar on 11.4.2008 vide letter dated 9.4.2008, which has also been challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No.3879 (M/B) of 2008.

3. The aforesaid writ petition has seriously been contested by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit wherein it has been indicated that the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar vide letter dated 4.1.2008 has informed the State Government that 20 criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, who has a criminal bent of mind. It was also informed that the petitioner is a resident of Khurja and his cases are related to Khurja and there are probabilities of adversely effecting the cases on account of his continuation on the post of ADGC (Criminal). In the backdrop of the said facts, the State Government thought it proper not to renew the term of the petitioner on the post of ADGC and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

4. On the strength of the provisions contained in 7.06 and 7.08(4) it has been vehemently contended that professional engagement is terminable at will on either side and is not an appointment to a post under the Government. Similarly, there is no right of an Advocate for renewal of its tenure and the State Government at any point of time can terminate the engagement without assigning any reasons.

5. It has also been urged that in the case of State of U.P. and others versus Ajay Kumar Sharma; 2016(1) ALJ 305, the Apex Court has held that the District Counsels do not enjoy the statutory rights with respect to the renewal of tenures and the State Government enjoys the discretionary powers in this context. In the said case it has also been held that performance of the Advocates should not be the sole criteria for their re-appointment as District Counsel and the State Government is free to repose trust and confidence in the persons whom they choose to appoint as their Advocates.

6. In afore-captioned writ petition No. 33568 of 2018 (M/B), the petitioner inter-alia has challenged the validity of the order dated 9.10.2018 passed by the State Government, directing the District Magistrate to appoint/engage Shri Rahul Upadhyaya as District Government Counsel (Criminal), Bulandshahar as also the order dated 23.10.2018 by which the charge of the post of District Government Counsel (Criminal) has been taken from the petitioner for handing over it to the opposite party no.2.

7. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Panel Lawyer (Criminal) on 2.6.1997 and thereafter as Assistant District Counsel on 3.9.2001 on regular basis, which term was renewed from time to time. Later on, he was appointed as Additional District Government Counsel (ADGC) vide order dated 24.6.2004 as the post of Assistant Government Counsel was upgraded.

8. It is said that the post of District Government Counsel (Criminal) fell vacant on account of superannuation of Sri Akil Ahmad Afridi w.e.f. 14.7.2014. On occurrence of the vacancy, the arrangement was to be made in consonance with the provisions of Para 7.10 of the LR Manual.

9. According to the petitioner, when the term of the petitioner as ADGC was not renewed, he filed a Writ Petition No. 3879 of 2008 in which an interim order was passed on 8.5.2008 and in complia