Order
1. The State of U.P by its Order dated 3-6-2002 rejected the request of the respondent for renewal of the extension of his term as District Government Counsel (Criminal). The respondent challenged the same in the writ petition. The High Court of Allahabad vide impugned order Misc. Bench No. 3512 of 2002 quashed the Order dated 3-6-2002 refusing renewal of the term of the respondent as District Government Counsel (Criminal) and further directed the State Government to renew the term of the respondent as a Government Counsel.
2. It is difficult to discern as to how the High Court has upheld the unstatable proposition advanced by the respondent for extension of his term as Government Counsel. We wish to say no more in this matter since the subject-matter that arises for our consideration is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in State of U.P v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714. This Court took the view that in the matter of engagement of a District Government Counsel, a concept of public office does not come into play. The choice of a counsel is for the Government and none can claim a right to be a counsel. There is no right for appointment of a Government Counsel.
3. The High Court has committed a grave error in renewing the appointment of the respondent as Government Counsel. Needless to state that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot compel the State to utilise the services of an advocate irrespective of its choice. It is for the State to select its own counsel.
4. The impugned order Misc. Bench No. 3512 of 2002 of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.