JUDGMENT K.C Bhargava, J. - These writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners against their removal by the State Government while they were working as Government Counsel. All these three writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as they raise a similar question of fact. 2. Kabool Singh Verma, petitioner of writ Petition. No. 2541 of 1992 was working as Assistant Government Counsel (Criminal), Saharanpur. His term was not extended by the State Government vide order dated 2751992, contained in annexure4 to the writ petition. 3. Isam Singh, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2543 of 1992 was working as Additional Government Counsel (Criminal), Saharanpur and his term was not extended by the State Government vide order dated 2751992, contained in annexure2 to the writ petition. 4. Har Pal Singh, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2544 of 1992 was working as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Saharanpur. His term was not extended by the State Government vide order dated 2751992 contained in annexure3 to the writ petition. 5. It may be mentioned here that all the three petitioners were working as Government Counsel in district Saharanpur and all of them have challenged the order of the State Government refusing to extend their term being not based on any material and as arbitrary orders. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel were heard. Learned Standing Counsel has also produced the original record in this case. He has not filed any counter affidavit. In this case no counter affidavit was necessary because the learned Standing Counsel had already produced the relevant record and the matter can be finally decided on the basis of the material available on the record. 7. We have perused the original record of the State Government which was produced by the learned Standing Counsel. In the present case the District Judge, Saharanpur has given his report about all the three petitioners. With regard to Kabool Singh Verma and Harpal Singh, petitioners, the District Judge has reported that they are not being recommended for continuance in their respective posts and has also mentioned that the work and conduct of Kabool Singh Verma and Harpal Singh are not good. With regard to Kabool Singh Verma and Harpal Singh, petitioners, the District Judge has reported that they are not being recommended for continuance in their respective posts and has also mentioned that the work and conduct of Kabool Singh Verma and Harpal Singh are not good. With respect to Harpal Singh specific instances have also been mentioned in which he has filed fictitious bail bonds and sureties and has also verified fictitious sureties and the matter relating to which is pending before the High Court. After perusing this report the District Officer has also not reported for continuance of these two petitioners as Government Counsel. With respect to Isam Singh the District Judge has mentioned that his work and conduct is good. But the District Officer without giving any reasons has merely said that the general reputation and the working capacity of this advocate is not good. Therefore the report of the District, Officer with respect to Isam Singh is very vague and on the basis of this report renewal of his term could not have been refused. It was incumbent on the District Officer to have made individual report about the advocates whose term he did not recommend for renewal. This has not been done by the District Officer and hence this report could not have been made the basis for refusing the renewal to the petitioner, Isam Singh. 8. The result of the above discussion is that Writ Petition No. 2543 (M/B) of 19.9 fited by Isam Singh is to be allowed and that Writ Petition Nos. 2541 (M/B) of 1992 and 2544 (M/B) of 1992 filed by Kabool Singh Verma and Harpal Singh respectively deserve to be dismissed. 9. Writ Petition No. 2543 (M/B) of 1992 filed by Isam Singh is allowed and the order dated 2751992 passed by the State Government, contained in annexure2 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. Writ Petition Nos. 2541 (M/B) of 1992 and 2544 (M/B) of 1992 filed by Kabool Singh Verma and Harpal Singh respectively are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (Order accordingly).