Judgment N.B. Asthana, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has teen filed for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10-4-89 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-XIII) communicated to the petitioner by respondent no. 3 on 10-4-89 and the order dated 20-4-89 (Annexure-XIV) passed by respondent no. 5 and communicated to the petitioner on 25-4-89 and to issue another writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) in district Banda and to pay him his salary and other emoluments including arrears to which he is entitled. 2. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Banda, Upon the recommendations of District and Sessions Judge, Banda District Magistrate, Banda the petitioner was appointed as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) for a period of one year vide order dated 20-1-84 of respondent no. 1 (Annexure-I). It is said that the petitioner was performing his duties honestly and efficiently and that there was no complaint against him. His precentage of conviction was also high. The Presiding Officers of different courts where the petitioner worked appreciated his work and issued certificates to him to that effect (Annexue-2 to 7) to the writ petition). He continued to work as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) even after the lapse of one year as favourable reports about his work and conduct were being sent by the District Judge and District Magistrate, Banda. Respondent no. 4, Sri Yogendra Kumar Bahal was A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) Banda and was also working as drawing and disbursing officer for payment of salary and other emoluments to the petitioner and other Law Officers of the district. In S.T. No. 16 of 1988 1 Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Banda imposed cost of Rs. 150/- against the State as the Investigating Officer did not turn up for giving evidence. The copy of this order was sent to Collector, Banda for payment of cost. The respondent No. 4 instead of sending the amount to the petitioner or to the Court sent an order directing the petitioner to Collect the money from Nazarat. This was not the job of the petitioner and, therefore, he returned the aforesaid order with the request that the amount be drawn and sent to the Court directly for payment to the accused. This was not the job of the petitioner and, therefore, he returned the aforesaid order with the request that the amount be drawn and sent to the Court directly for payment to the accused. The respondent no 4 felt annoyed and passed an order warning the petitioner (Annexure-VIII to the writ petition). The petitioner also submitted the reply clarifying his position. The amount was subsequently sent and paid to the accused before the Presiding Officer. The respondent no. 4 was a witness in Criminal Cases Nos. 19 of 1988, State v. Sukh Lal and 21 of 198S State v. Udaibhan Singh under Essential Commodities Act in the court of Special Judge. Banda as he had accorded sanction for prosecuting; the accused. He was summoned on 1-2-89 to give evidence. He came at about 1.50 P.M. and went inside the Chamber of the Presiding Officer. THE Presiding Officer did not like it and asked him to wait in the court room. He occupied the chair of steno to the presiding officer on the dais of the court. The Presiding Officer came to the court but still respondent no. 4 did not stand whereupon the Presiding Officer rebuked and asked him to leave the dais immediately and some to the witness box. At the time of cross-examination respondent no. 4 admitted that he committed mistake in granting sanction in both the cases. (The copy of these statements are Annexures IX and X to the writ petition). The Presiding Officer acquitted the accused in both the cases and passed strictures against respondent no. 4 (the copy of the judgments are Annexures XI and XII to the writ petition. The respondent no. 4 felt highly annoyed against the petitioner and prevailed upon District Magistrate. Banda in writing a letter to the State Government not to allow the petitioner to continue as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) The respondent no. 4 also went to Lucknow and thereafter, persuaded the authority to pass the order against the petitioner. The result was that on 20-4-89 he has teased to work as ADGC (Criminal). The original order was not sent to him. Instead orders dated 10-4 -89 (Annexure-XIII of D.G.C (Criminal) and Annexure XIV of District Magistrate, Banda) were communicated to him. The petitioner then made representation before the Governor of U.P. and the Law Minister (Copies of these representations are Annexures-XV and XVI to the writ petition). The original order was not sent to him. Instead orders dated 10-4 -89 (Annexure-XIII of D.G.C (Criminal) and Annexure XIV of District Magistrate, Banda) were communicated to him. The petitioner then made representation before the Governor of U.P. and the Law Minister (Copies of these representations are Annexures-XV and XVI to the writ petition). His appointment was cancelled illegally at the behest and under the influence of respondent no. 4. It is further said that the petitioner has come to know that on 8-2-88 a strong recommendation was made by the District Judge and respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate for renewing the appointment of the petitioner for a further period of three years It is said that the order terminating his engagement is malafide exercise of powers and that no opportunity of hearing was given to him against the adverse report said to have been given by the respondents no. 2 and 4 against him. The order terminating the petitioner's engagement has been turned as arbitrary and it has also been alleged that the petitioner has no other equally efficacious alternative and specific remedy than to seek the protection of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. On behalf of respondents no. 2, 3 and 5 Sri Siya Ram Azad, Assistant Judicial Assistant, Collector, etc. Banda filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties satisfactorily. His conduct had always been point of dispute. He moved an application in S.T. No. 95 of 1988 State v. Kishal Pal and others against the prosecution witness, with the result that they were taken into custody and sent to jail although they were clearly willing to speak the truth and to support the prosecution version of the case. An application was moved by the witnesses against the petitioner on 16-8-88 alleging that the petitioner bad been won over by the accused. (The copy of this application is Annexure C.A. 1). The performance of the petitioner was below the mark. The percentage of conviction given in the writ petition are misleading the eases in which the witnesses turned hostile and the accused were acquitted have not been taken into account. He used to declare witnesses hostile on flimsy grounds. (The copy of this application is Annexure C.A. 1). The performance of the petitioner was below the mark. The percentage of conviction given in the writ petition are misleading the eases in which the witnesses turned hostile and the accused were acquitted have not been taken into account. He used to declare witnesses hostile on flimsy grounds. The petitioner was so incompetent that no Presiding Officer was willing to take work with him and this fact was also conveyed in writing (Annexures C.A. 2 and C.A.-3 to the counter affidavit). Favourable remark was given about the work and conduct of the petitioner so long as his work and conduct were satisfactory but when adverse facts came to the notice of the District Magistrate, his continuation as A.D.G.C. (Crl.) was not considered proper for prosecuting agency. The State Government was moved against the petitioner not on account of the payment of cost but on account of the fact that the petitioner was incompetent of doubtful integrity and his work was also below standard. The District Magistrate was duty bound to report the matter to the Government. The inefficiency of the petitioner came to light as early as in the year 1985 when the then District Judge, Banda sent a letter to the District Magistrate about the incompetency of the petitioner. (Its copy is Annexure C.A.-4). The then District Magistrate wrote a letter on 19-4-85 to the State Government about the poor working of the petitioner. (Its copy is Annexure C.A.-5). On 26-4-85 the District Judge, Banda also wrote a letter to the Government about incompetency of the petitioner. (Its copy is Annexure C.A.-VI). The Special Judge, Banda dealing with Dcoity cases was also dissatisfied with the petitioner. He also wrote a letter in this connection, (its copy is Annexure C.A.-8). The District Magistrate, Banda then sent letters dated 24-4-87 and 16-6-87 to the State Government in this connection (their copies are Annexures C.A.-9 and C.A. -10). 3. First Additional District Judge, Banda also sent a copy of the order dated 17-1-88 (Annexure C.A.-XI) against the petitioner censuring his conduct and awarding Rs. 200/- as cost for adjournment. Respondent no. 4 took charge at Banda on 22-8-87, given prior to this date complaints were being received against the petitioner and the District Magistrate was referring them to the State Government. 200/- as cost for adjournment. Respondent no. 4 took charge at Banda on 22-8-87, given prior to this date complaints were being received against the petitioner and the District Magistrate was referring them to the State Government. It is wrong to say that respondent no 4 persuaded the District Magistrate to send unfavourable report against the petitioner to the State Government. The Government had been moved to dispense with the services of the petitioner and, therefore, he was stopped to work in the courts in the interest of the State and to prevent further damage to the prosecuting agency In the cases pending before the court In which be was working. His professional engagement expired on 30-6-88 but as no orders were received from the State Government he was continuing to work. The order from the State Government was received on 20-4-89 but as the work of the petitioner was unsatisfactory the District Magistrate passed the order on 10-4-89 withdrawing all the work from him. The State Government before passing the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner looked into his record and the various reports submitted to it from time to time by the District Magistrate. The recommendation for continuing the petitioner as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) was made by incharge District Judge and not by the District Judge This recommendation is thus meaningless. The petitioner was not a Government servant. It was not necessary to give him no ice to show cause before dispensing with his services. The other allegations made in the writ petition were denied and it was said that the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit in which he traversed the allegations made regarding the unsatisfactory nature of his work and conduct stating that in S.T. No. 95 of 1088 state v. Kishan Pal and others the witnesses after taking oath did not dispose anything. All persuation failed and, therefore, the Presiding Officer took all the witnesses under custody This would be amply clear from the order passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge in that Sessions trial (its copy Is Annexure R.A.-1). Upon the application of the witnesses he was asked to explain by the D.G.C (Criminal). He submitted his explanation (its copy is Annexure R.A-3). Upon the application of the witnesses he was asked to explain by the D.G.C (Criminal). He submitted his explanation (its copy is Annexure R.A-3). It in wrong to say that no Presiding Officer was willing to take work from him It is also said that the respondent no. 4 has not come to file counter affidavit although personal allegations were made against him and, therefore, whatever has been stated against him in the affidavit should be taken as correct. Various annexures filed with the counter affidavit against the petitioner ralate to the period 1985 to 1987. He made representation to the Governor of U.P. Whereupon his term was renewed upto 30-6-88 The adverse reports are therefore wholly irrelevant for the decision of this writ petition. The order dated 17-5-88 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Banda imposing cost for adjournment and allegedly censuring his conduct was recalled on 27-5-88 (Its copy is Annexure R.A. 6). This development was not brought to the notice of the State Government otherwise he engagement would not have been dispensed with. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Three points have been urged in this writ petition. The first point is that the order terminating the petitioner's services is malafide, secondly that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and thirdly that no reasons have been assigned for terminating his engagement. 5. The allegations of malafide have been made against respondent no. 4. It is correct that respondent no. 4 has not filed any counter affidavit disputing the allegations made in the writ petition It is however to be examined as to whether from the allegations made in the writ petition and from the documents placed on record it can be said that on account of the malafide of respondent no 4 the District Magistrate sent an adverse report to the State Government which resulted in the termination of the engagement of the petitioner as A.D.G.C. (Criminal). From the perusal of this allegations made in para 9 of the writ petition and Annexure-VIII to the writ petition it would appear that a payment voucher of Rs. 150/- was sent to the petitioner. From the perusal of this allegations made in para 9 of the writ petition and Annexure-VIII to the writ petition it would appear that a payment voucher of Rs. 150/- was sent to the petitioner. He refused to accept it saying that it was not his duty to collect the money from Nazarat and that the amount be sent directly to the Court. Thereafter the respondent no 4 sent a letter to the petitioner asking him to accept the voucher, take 150/- from Nazir and hand it over to the accused and file its receipt in his office He also warned the petitioner that in future the order be not flouted otherwise strict action would be taken against him. It appears that thereafter the payment voucher was accepted by the petitioner, cost were collected by him and paid to the accused after obtaining the receipt thereof. It would thus be clear that the petitioner complied with the directions given by respondent no. 4 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the conduct of the petitioner gave any animus to the respondent no. 4 to persuade respondent no. 2 to send adverse report against him. 6. It is also the contention of the petitioner that in Special oases Nos. 19/88 and 21/88 State v. Sukhlal and State v. Udai Bhan strictures were passed against respondent no. 4 on account of which he was annoyed with the petitioner. From the allegations made in the writ petition and the copies of judgment of the aforesaid criminal cases it would appear that the petitioner was not in any way responsible for the strictures passed by the court against respondent no. 4. Respondent no 4 in his cross-examination in both the cases admitted the sanction given by him was not in accordance with law. Consequently the accused were acquitted upon this ground as well. We do not think it can be argued that the petitioner was in any way responsible for these strictures. The fact that respondent no. 4 admitted his mistake during his cross examination would rule out the possibility of respondent no. 4 being annoyed with the petitioner Had he not admitted his mistake and strictures were passed against him then respondent no. The fact that respondent no. 4 admitted his mistake during his cross examination would rule out the possibility of respondent no. 4 being annoyed with the petitioner Had he not admitted his mistake and strictures were passed against him then respondent no. 4 could have some grievance against the petitioner that the arguments were not properly advanced with the result that strictures were passed against him but not in the instant ease when respondent no 4 himself admitted his mistake in according sanction to the prosecution for filing complaints/charge-sheet against the accused. If the Presiding Officer rebuked respondent No 4 for occupying the chair of the steno on the dais, we do not think the petitioner was responsible for it in any way. There is no allegation that the petitioner asked the Presiding Officer either to rebuke the respondent No. 4 for occupying the chair of the steno or for asking him to come to the witness box to give statement. From the record it would farther appear that the then District Judge and District Magistrate and some other Presiding Officers were not satisfied with the working of the petitioner and, therefore, it would be wrong to say that on account of malice of respondent No. 4 recommendation was made by District Magistrate, Banda for dispensing with the engagement of the petitioner. Annexure-CA-2 is the order dated 7-1-88 of District Government counsel. It shows that I Addl. Sessions Judge. Banda told him verbally that some senior A.D.G.C. should be appointed to lookafter the work in his court in order to make it run smoothly. The petitioner was working in that Court, The D.G.C. (Crl.) shifted him to the court of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Banda and Sri Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi A.D.G.C. (criminal) working in the court of II Addl. Sessions Judge to the court of I Addl. Sessions Judge Annexure-CA-3 is the order dated 19-9-88 passed by the District Government counsel (criminal), Banda. It shows that II Addl. Sessions Judge, Banda was not willing to spare Sri Ashok Kumar Chatarvedi and take work from the petitioner in his court. The I Addl. Sessions judge was equally adamant in not taking work from the petitioner as he was not satisfied with his working. The D.G.C, therefore, appointed Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Penal Lawyer to work in the Court of I Addl. Sessions Judge till further orders. The I Addl. Sessions judge was equally adamant in not taking work from the petitioner as he was not satisfied with his working. The D.G.C, therefore, appointed Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Penal Lawyer to work in the Court of I Addl. Sessions Judge till further orders. Separate orders were passed with respect to the petitioner. Annexure CA-4 is the letter dated 24-1-85 of District Judge, Banda to District Magistrate, Banda in which he has stated that the work of the petitioner is not satisfactory. He has certified his conduct and integrity. Annexure CA-5 is letter dated 19-4-85 by District Magistrate Banda, to Dy. L.R. UP. Shasan. Lucknow stating that he agreed with the opinion of the District Judge and recommending that the term of the petitioner be not renewed. Annexure-CA-6 is another letter dated 26-7-85 of the then District Judge. Banda addressed to Joint L.R. U.P. Shasan Lucknow He has stated that the petitioner has been working in the court of Special Judge and II Addl. Sessions Judge but the Presiding Officers are not satisfied with his working Annexure-CA-7 is the report dated 25-2-87 of D.G.C. (Criminal) addressed to District Magistrate, Banda stating that the petitioner was not available on 7-2-87 with the result that prosecution witnesses could not be examined in the court of Special Judge Annexure CA-8 is the letter dated 13-3-87 of Sri S C Ravi, Special Judge. Banda addressed to District Magistrate Banda stating that the petitioner moved an application for summoning the witnesses incorporating the names of S I. Sri P S. Malan and S I. Manni Lal Verma who were not cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet and that the petitioner negligently applied for summoning them- That would have interfered with the duties of the two Sub Inspectors and would have also burdened the State Exchequer with their T.A and D.A. He has also stated that some other State counsel be directed to work in his court so that it may run smoothly. Annexure-CA-9 is the letter dated 24-4-87 of District Magistrate, Handa addressed to Dy. L.R Uttar Pradesh Shasan. Lucknow stating that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not upto the mark and for that very reason vide letter dated 19-4-85 his case for renewal was not recommended. His work and conduct have not been satisfactory even thereafter and a report against him regarding indiscipline was also made. L.R Uttar Pradesh Shasan. Lucknow stating that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not upto the mark and for that very reason vide letter dated 19-4-85 his case for renewal was not recommended. His work and conduct have not been satisfactory even thereafter and a report against him regarding indiscipline was also made. It is stated in this letter that the renewal of the petitioner be not made and his engagement be dispensed with immediate effect. Annexure-C.A.-10 is another letter of District Magistrate, Banda addressed to Dy. L.R. U.P. Shasan, Lucknow enquiring as to whether any order has been passed upon his letter Annexure-CA-9. Annexure-CA-11 is the copy of order dated 17-5-88 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge. Banda in S.T. No. 96 of 1988 State v. Ram Singh and others censuring the conduct of the petitioner and awarding Rs. 200/- as cost of adjournment the contention of the petitioner is that this order was recalled by the Presiding Officer himself upon an application moved by him subsequently. Annexure-CA 12 Is the letter dated 154-89 by D.G.C. (Criminal), Banda addressed to District Magistrate, Banda. It relates to non service of the order dated 10-4-89 asking the petitioner not to work as State Counsel and to return all the case diaries and other papers with him. Annexure-CA-13 is the letter dated 20-4-89 by Dy. L.R. Uttar Pradesh Shasan dispensing with the engagement of the petitioner with effect from 1-7-88 The work done by him during the period 1-7-88 from the date of renewal was regularised. Recommendation was invited for fresh appointment in his place. 7. It was argued that the recommendation made by the District Judge, Banda and District Magistrate, Banda were not accepted by the State Government and inspite of the adverse comments the term of the petitioner was renewed and, therefore, these adverse reports would not make any difference in so far as the work and) conduct of the appellants are concerned. This argument in so far it goes may be correct but would not help the petitioner in so far as the question of malice on the part of respondent No. 4 is concerned. This argument in so far it goes may be correct but would not help the petitioner in so far as the question of malice on the part of respondent No. 4 is concerned. These papers would show that the district authorities including the Presiding Officer of various courts were not satisfied with the working of the petitioner and the matter of his removal was engaging the attention of the district authorities since before the posting of respondent no. 4 in district Banda. Some certificates issued by some other Presiding Officers have been placed on record by the petitioner in order to show that his work and conduct were more than satisfactory and he was discharging his duties to the satisfaction of these presiding officers. We would revert to these certificates, shortly, these certificates however would not go to show that respondent No. 4 was actuated by malice against the petitioner and he was instrumental in persuading respondent No. 2 namely District Magistrate, Banda In making recommendation to the State Government for not renewing the term of the petitioner! 8. In view of discussions above we are of the opinion that the impugned orders were not passed as a result of malice or ill will of respondent No. 4. It was then argued that order dispensing with the engagement of the petitioner did not assign any reason. It has been argued that the work and conduct of the petitioner had always been good and as such there was no reason for the State Government not to renew his engagement Annexure II is the copy of the certificate dated 1-4-84 given by Sri Jhamman Lal, the then Special Judge (E.C. Act) Banda in which he was stated that "the petitioner is very labourious and takes extra ordinary pains in procuring the presence of the witnesses. He has good grasp of law and procedure He is abreast of latest case law. He is through (thorough) gentle and well behaved His entegrity (integiry) is above board" Annexure-III is the certificate dated 9-9-85 given by Sri S.C. Tewari, the then III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge Dacoity Affected Areas Court, Banda. In this certificate it is stated that "He is very labourious and takes extra ordinary pains in procuring the presence of the witnesses. His work has always been found satisfactory. He has good grasp of law and procedure. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge Dacoity Affected Areas Court, Banda. In this certificate it is stated that "He is very labourious and takes extra ordinary pains in procuring the presence of the witnesses. His work has always been found satisfactory. He has good grasp of law and procedure. He is abreast of latest case law. He is thorough gentle and well behaved. His entegrity (Integrity) is above board." From these two certificates it is clear that they were drafted by one and the same person and then the signature of the Presiding Officer concerned was obtained. Annexure-IV is the certificate dated 31-5-87 given by Sri B.P. Srivastava, Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge (E.C. Act) Banda It is stated therein "His (petitioner) work has always been found satisfactory. He has a good grasp of knowledge of upto date Law and procedure. He is taking keen interest in procuring the witnesses. His integrity is above board." Annexure-V Is again the certificate of Sri S. C. Tewari dated 1-6 -87. He had issued earlier certificate Annexure-III. Annexure-IV is the certificate dated 27-1-88 given by Sri Sanwal Singh, I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Banda who had earlier censured the petitioner's conduct and had awarded Rs.200/- as adjournment costs about his good work and conduct. Annexure-VII is the certificate dated 11-10-81 given by Sri S.K. Gupta, District Judge. Banda The petitioner worked in his court only for a few months in the year 1987-88 He has certified the petitioner's work and conduct good and has also certified his integrity. 9. Para 7.03 of Legal Remembrancer Manual relates to the character role of the District Government Counsel. It lays down that the District Officer and the District Judge snail before the end of every year and also while leaving the district on transfer placed on record his opinion on the capacity and work of the D.G.C. The District Judge shall before recording such opinion obtain a report about the work and conduct of the D.G.C. from the Presiding Officers of the Courts where they are generally required to practice. 10. We do not approve at all of the Presiding Officers issuing recommendatory certificates to the A.D.G.C. (Criminal) and D.G.C. (Criminal). They should give their opinion confidentially as required by the above para of Legal Remembrancer's Manual. 10. We do not approve at all of the Presiding Officers issuing recommendatory certificates to the A.D.G.C. (Criminal) and D.G.C. (Criminal). They should give their opinion confidentially as required by the above para of Legal Remembrancer's Manual. In any case some of the Presiding Officer spoke highly of the petitioner while the others did not have good opinion about his work and conduct. In the circumstances be had become controversial and, therefore, we do not think that the various certificates of the Presiding Officers filed by the petitioner would help in any way. It has also been contended that vide order dated 17-5-88 I Addl. District and Sessions Judge has recalled his earlier order granting cost of Rs. 200/-. The copy of order has been filed which shows that application 12-B was moved for exonerating the state from payment of cost. This application was not opposed and, therefore, it was allowed by the Presiding Officer. This order would not lead to the conclusion that the earlier order passed by I Addl. District Judge disapproving of the conduct of the petitioner was recalled. Since the application for exonerating the State from payment of cost was not opposed by the counsel for the accused the Presiding Officer allowed it. It has been argued on behalf of the state that the certificate issued by Sri Sanwal Singh I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Banda should not be given any weight because the same officer has disapproved of the conduct of the petitioner. These certificates however would not help the petitioner in any way in the circumstances of the case in view of para 7.06 and subsequent paras of Legal Remembrancer's Manual which are as follows :- "7.06-Appointment and renewal. (1) The legal practitioner and finally selected by the Government may be appointed District Government Counsel for one year from the date of his taking over charge. (2) At the end of the aforesaid period, the District Officer after consulting the District Judge shall submit a report on his work and conduct to the Legal Remembrancer together with the statement of work done in Form No. 9. Should his work or conduct be found to be unsatisfactory the matter shall be reported to the Government for orders. (2) At the end of the aforesaid period, the District Officer after consulting the District Judge shall submit a report on his work and conduct to the Legal Remembrancer together with the statement of work done in Form No. 9. Should his work or conduct be found to be unsatisfactory the matter shall be reported to the Government for orders. If the report in respect of his work and conduct is satisfactory, he may be furnished with a deed of engagement in Form No. 1 for a term not exceeding three years. On his first engagement a copy of Form No 2 shall be supplied to him and he shall complete and return it to the Legal Remembrancer for record. (3) The appointment of any Legal practitioner as a District Government Counsel is only professional engagement terminable at will on either side and is not appointment to a post under the Government. Accordingly the Government reserves the power to terminate the appointment of any District Government Counsel at any time without assigning any cause. 7.70-Political Activity - The District Government Counsel shall not Participate in political activities so long they work as such ; otherwise they shall incur a disqualification to hold the post. 7.08.-Renewal of term.- (1) At least three months before the expiry of the term of a District Government Counsel, the District Officer shall after consulting the District Judge and considering his past record of work, conduct and age, report to the Legal Remembrancer, together with the statement of work done by him in Form No. 9 whether in his opinion the term of such counsel should be renewed or not. A copy of the opinion of the District Judge should also be sent along with the recommendation of the District Officer. (2) Where recommendation for the extension of the term of a District Government Counsel is made for the specified period only, the reasons therefor shall also be stated by the District Officer. A copy of the opinion of the District Judge should also be sent along with the recommendation of the District Officer. (2) Where recommendation for the extension of the term of a District Government Counsel is made for the specified period only, the reasons therefor shall also be stated by the District Officer. (3) While forwarding his recommendation for renewal of the term of a District Government Counsel- (i) the District Judge shall give an estimate of the quality of the counsels' work from the Judicial stand point, keeping in view the different aspects of a lawyer's capacity as it is manifested before him in conducting State cases, and specially his professional conduct ; (ii) the District Officer shall give his report about the suitability of the District Government counsel from the Administrative point of view, his public reputation in genera), his character, integrity and professional conduct. (4) If the Government agrees with the recommendations of the District Officer for the renewal of the term of the Government Counsel, it may pass orders for re-appointing him for a period not exceeding three years. (5) If the Government decides not to re-appoint a Government counsel, the Legal Remembrancer may call upon the District Officer to forward fresh recommendations in the manner laid down in para 7.03. (6) The procedure prescribed in this para shall be followed on the expiry of every successive period of renewed appointment of a District Government Counsel. Note-The renewal beyond 60 years of age shall depend upon continuous good work, sound integrity and physical fitness of the counsel. 11. These provisions show that the Initial appointment is for a period of one year. During which the work and conduct of the appointee is watched to adjudge his suitability and a report is required to be submitted at the end thereof by the District Officer after consulting the District Judge and the same being found satisfactory his engagement is made for a term not exceeding three years. Before expiry of term of three years the case of incumbent is to be considered en the basis of his work, conduct and age for renewal and the Government is required to decide the question of his reappointment for a period not exceeding three years on the basis of the report of the District Officer and the opinion of the District Judge. If the Government goes with their recommendations the term of the existing incumbent is renewed for a period not exceeding three years. It is only, if the Government decides not to appoint a Government counsel then the Legal Remembrancer may call upon the District Officer to forward fresh recommendations in the manner laid down in para 7.03. This procedure is to be followed on the expiry of every successive period of renewed appointment of District Government Counsel. Para 7.08 (4) of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual would make it clear that the Government is not bound with the recommendation of the District Officer for the renewal of the term of the Government counsel It Is goes with the recommendation of the District Officers it may pass orders for appointing him for a period not exceeding three years and in case the Government decides not to appoint Government counsel the legal Remembrancer may call upon the District Officer to forward fresh recommendations in the manner laid down in para 7.30. It has been argued on the basis of the averments made in para 22 of the writ petition that on 8-2-88 and strong recommendation was made by the District Judge and by respondent No. 2 to continue the appointment of the petitioner for a further period of three years. The above allegations has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit. On the other band it is stated that the recommendation was made by the Incharge District Judge and not by the District Judge and that the percentage of conviction given by the petitioner was wrong inasmch as those cases in which acquittal was made as a result of the hostility of the witnesses were not counted. Since under the Legal Remembrancer's Manual under which the D.G.C, A.D.G.C. and penal lawyers are appointed, the recommendation of the District Officer is not binding upon the State. We are of the opinion that inspite of the recommendation of the District Officer the State Government was within its rights in not renewing the term of the petitioner. 12. It is no doubt correct that the State Government while refusing to renew the term of the petitioner did not assign any reasons. It was contended that in the absence of the reasons the order of the State Government not to renew the term of the petitioner cannot be upheld. 12. It is no doubt correct that the State Government while refusing to renew the term of the petitioner did not assign any reasons. It was contended that in the absence of the reasons the order of the State Government not to renew the term of the petitioner cannot be upheld. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Km. Srilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., 1990 U.P. L.B. E.C. 1174. That was a case in which by one stroke the Government of the Slate of U.P. terminated by general order the appointments of ell Government Counsel (Civil, Criminal, Revenue) in ail the districts of State of U.P. w.e.f. 26-2-90 and directed preparation of fresh penals to make appointment in piece of the existing Incumbents. On the basis of the provisions of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the District Government Counsel hold public office, their termination is amenable to judicial review and that without the existence of any reason their services could not have been terminated by one stroke of pen. The Supreme Court observed that "The non-assigning of seasons or the non-communication thereof may be based on public policy, but termination of an appointment without the existence of any cogent reason in furtherance of the object for which the power is given would be arbitrary and, therefore, against public policy." The Supreme Court was also of the opinion that in clause 3 of para 7-06 The power of terminate the appointment of any District Government Counsel at any time without assigning any cause would not mean that the appointment is at the sweet will of the Government which can be terminated at any time even without the existence of any cogent reason during the subsistence of the term." All this was laid down with reference to the termination of the appointment of District Government Counsel. The ruling did not relate to the refusal of the State Government to renew the term of the State Counsel. From the material placed on record it is clear that reports were made against the petitioner by the District Judge as well as by the District Magistrate for not renewing his term. Reasons therefore existing for not renewing the term of the petitioner. It was argued that inspite of these adverse report the term of the petitioner was renewed till 30-6-88. 13. Reasons therefore existing for not renewing the term of the petitioner. It was argued that inspite of these adverse report the term of the petitioner was renewed till 30-6-88. 13. In the ordindary course the term should not have been renewed but it appears that as the report of the District Officer is only recommendatory and is not binding upon the State Government, the State Government for the reasons which can only be visualized renewed the petitioner's term Such appointments and renewal are not always made on consideration of merit alone. 14. It is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Government to decide whether to renew the term of the State Counsel or not to renew it. Reports and recommenations of District Officer are not binding upon the State Government. The State Government is also not required to give any reason either for not accepting the report or the recommendation of the District Officer and for not renewing the term of a State Counsel. Reliance has also been placed upon U.P. State Law Officers Association High Court, Allahabad v State of W.P., 1990 U.P. L.B. E.C. 1346. That ease related to the State Law Officers working in the High Court. We do not think that this ruling would apply in the present case. 15. We are therefore of the opinion that the State Government was not required to assign any reason while not renewing the term of the petitioner as A.D.G.C. (Criminal). 16. It was then urged that opportunity was not given to the petitioner before the State Government passed the order refusing to renew his term. Various paras of the Legal remembrancer's Manual as stated above would make it amply clear that neither the State Government is required to assign any reason before refusing to renew the appointment nor it is required to give any opportunity to the incumbent to show cause. The term of the petitioner came to an end after three years. It was then for the Government to decide whether to renew the term or not. It was not required to give any opportunity to the petitioner before deciding not to renew his term. No fundamental right of the petitioner is involved in the matter. He is also not a Government servant so that provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution may be available to him. It was not required to give any opportunity to the petitioner before deciding not to renew his term. No fundamental right of the petitioner is involved in the matter. He is also not a Government servant so that provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution may be available to him. The principles of natural justice are also not involved in this case because the petitioner bad his full term of three years for which he was initially engaged and it was in the discretion of the State Government whether to renew the term or not. In view of the discussion above we are of the opinion that the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.