STATE OF U.P. vs AJAY KUMAR SHARMA

The Supreme Court addressed the appointment and renewal of District Government Counsel under the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual and Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), highlighting the misuse of these provisions for political favoritism. The Court reaffirmed that the appointment of District Government Counsel is a professional engagement and not a government service position, as established in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212. The Court held that while there is no right to extension of terms, grievances regarding unfair treatment or procedural non-compliance can be examined under judicial review, thereby emphasizing the need for adherence to established procedures.