M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned G. O. dated 11. 12. 2003 Annexure 13 to the writ petition and the impugned order dated 1. 1. 2003 and 13. 1. 2003 Annexure 11 and 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing that he should be allowed to continue functioning as D. G. C. (Civil) till the age of 65 years. Heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a. D. G. C. (Civil), Allahabad by order dated 23. 9. 1978 and was given appointment letter dated 6. 10. 1978 vide annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that he continued to work as such by virtue of his satisfactory service as recommended by the District Judge and district Magistrate in pursuance of various renewal orders issued from time to time. ( 3 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that a permanent vacancy of d. G. C. (Civil) arose and the petitioner was asked to take over charge vide letter dated 3. 2. 1990 Annexure 2 to the writ petition. He was appointed as full fledged d. G. C. (Civil) by order dated 31. 7. 1990 annexure 3 to the writ petition. This tenure was extended till 31. 12. 1991 vide annexure 4 to the writ petition and thereafter he was given extensions from time to time. ( 4 ) THE petitioners service came to an end on his completion of his age at 60 years on 2. 1. 2001 against which he filed writ petition no. 5160 of 2001 which was allowed vide judgment dated 18. 5. 2001 copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned that the note to paragraph 7. 08 (6) of the L. R. Manual states: "the renewal beyond 60 years of age shall depend upon continuous good work, sound integrity and physical fitness of the counsel. " ( 6 ) IT appears that it was on the basis of that note that the Division Bench decided writ petition no. 08 (6) of the L. R. Manual states: "the renewal beyond 60 years of age shall depend upon continuous good work, sound integrity and physical fitness of the counsel. " ( 6 ) IT appears that it was on the basis of that note that the Division Bench decided writ petition no. 5160 of 2001 ram Nihore Singh vs. State of U. P. , 2001 a. G. J. 896 holding that the petitioners termination of service at the age of 60 years was illegal since the note to para 7. 08 (6) itself contemplates continuing the service beyond 60 years. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, by the impugned G. O. dated 11. 12. 2002 it has been stated that the term of D. G. C. (Civil) can be continued till the age of 62 years provided he is physically fit as certified by the chief Medical Officer and has done good work as certified by the District magistrate. ( 8 ) THUS the maximum age limit of d. G. C. /a. D. G. C. is now 62 years as mentioned in the G. O. dated 11. 12. 2002. Since the petitioner completed 62 years on 1. 1. 2003 his term was not extended. ( 9 ) WE see no illegality in the impugned G. O. dated 11. 12. 2002. No doubt the note of para 7. 08 (6) of the L. R. Manual contemplates continuation of service of a government counsel beyond 60years but that does not mean that they have a right to continue forever. It is open to the government to fix the age limit and they have fixed it at 62 years and we see no illegality in the same. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the earlier g. O. dated 22. 12. 2001 Annexure 10 to the writ petition the maximum age limit was 65 years but now it has been curtailed to 62 years. He has submitted that this is illegal because this deprived the government counsels of their vested right to continue till 65 years. We do not agree. It is open to the government to fix the age limit as to when the term of a government counsel shall come to an end. The G. O. dated 22. 12. He has submitted that this is illegal because this deprived the government counsels of their vested right to continue till 65 years. We do not agree. It is open to the government to fix the age limit as to when the term of a government counsel shall come to an end. The G. O. dated 22. 12. 2001 is an executive order and one executive order can be modified by another executive order under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and Article 166 of the Constitution. Fixing of age limit at 65 years was not done by any legislative enactment but only by a G. O. , and hence it can be modified or revoked by another G. O. and that is what has been done in this case. We do not agree that any accrued right has been taken away by the impugned G. O. dated 11. 12. 2002. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that some government counsels have continued as such even after the age of 62 years. If that is so their term will be deemed to have come to an end forthwith provided they have crossed the age of 62 years. ( 12 ) THUS there is no illegality in the impugned G. O. dated 11. 12. 2002. This writ petition and all other similar writ petitions pending in this Court challenging the G. O. dated 11. 12. 2002 reducing the age limit of 62 years are hereby dismissed. The interim order if any is hereby vacated. ( 13 ) LET the Registrar General of this court send copy of this judgment forthwith to the Law Secretary, U. P. and all District Judges in the State. .