Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1492 (ALL)

Aqueel Ahmad Afridi v. State of U. P.

2011-06-23

SHABIHUL HASNAIN, VEDPAL

body2011
Vedpal, J. Heard Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. An order has been passed by Zila Adhikari, Bulandshahar against the petitioner declining his renewal and also reliving him from work. The petitioner says that there was an interim order in his favour passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3808 (M/B) of 2008, which is quoted hereinbelow. "Notice on behalf of respondents has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, who prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. In the meantime, in view of the fact that the petitioner's appointment on the post of District Government Counsel (Criminal), Bulandshahar was made after following the procedure of the L.R. and the order of refusal to renew the term does not disclose any reason, we provide as an interim measure that in case no other person has been appointed on the post, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue as such, till further orders of this Court." 3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.06.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition shows that it does not even take cognizance of the order of Division Bench of the High Court. There is no whisper about the interim order passed by this Court. The petitioner's counsel says that the petitioner is seeking protection of this Court's order on the ground that neither the stay vacation application has been moved till date nor the order has been modified in any manner by the Court and no Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against that order. 4. Under the circumstances, the order remains intact, as such any order of the High Court has to be respected by the executive and more so by the Office of a Legal Remembrance who is supposed to be custodian of judicial activity of the State. It will be sad day if this authority also behaves in such callous manner and shows disrespect towards the order of the High Court. We are not affirming any right in favour of the petitioner because of the fact that the issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. 6. We are not affirming any right in favour of the petitioner because of the fact that the issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. 6. We in respectful regard of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case find that it is not a right of the petitioner to continue as DGC but it is only a matter where the order of the High Court has to be respected in letter and spirit. 7. Learned Standing Counsel shall file counter affidavit within two weeks specifically answering all the observations of this Court. 8. Connect with W.P.No.3808 (M/B) of 2008 and list this case in the second week of July, 2011. 9. Till the next date of listing, the State shall not finalise the appointment of any person on the post held by the petitioner.