Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)
Sushil Kumar Sirohi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 September, 2019 cites

State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004

In State of U.P. and others vs. Johri Mal (supra) Court said that Government Counsels do not enjoy statutory rights with respect to renewals of tenures and State Government enjoyed discretionary powers in this respect. In such matter, Courts must be circumspect in exercise of judicial review. The curial performance of advocates should not be the sole criterion for their reappointment as Government Counsel and that State Government must be free to repose trust and confidence in the persons whom they choose to appoint as its advocates. Further, engagement of a Government Counsel does not bring within its ambit concept of public office. In the matter of such empanelment, choice is that of Government and none can claim a right to be appointed. That must necessarily be so because it is a position of great trust and confidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 353 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Up And Ors vs Ajay Kumar Sharma And Anr on 26 November, 2015

Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others (2016) 15 SCC 289 has held that in view of aforesaid larger bench judgment, earlier judgment rendered by two judges bench of Supreme court i.e.Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 and any judgment rendered thereafter would not hold the field insofar as it is inconsistent with three judges judgment in State of U.P. and others vs. Johri Mal (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 10 - V Sen - Full Document

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990

Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others (2016) 15 SCC 289 has held that in view of aforesaid larger bench judgment, earlier judgment rendered by two judges bench of Supreme court i.e.Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 and any judgment rendered thereafter would not hold the field insofar as it is inconsistent with three judges judgment in State of U.P. and others vs. Johri Mal (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1487 - J S Verma - Full Document

State Of U.P & Ors vs Rakesh Kumar Keshari & Anr on 4 May, 2011

5. Appointment of penal lawyer or Government Counsel does not mean that they are appointed to a civil post and thereby got a vested right of continuity. The judgment of Johri Mal was followed in State of UP v. Rakesh Kumar Keshri (2011) 5 SCC 341; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 117; Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 277; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Satyavrat Singh (2014) 14 SCC 548 and State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 141 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 June, 2012

5. Appointment of penal lawyer or Government Counsel does not mean that they are appointed to a civil post and thereby got a vested right of continuity. The judgment of Johri Mal was followed in State of UP v. Rakesh Kumar Keshri (2011) 5 SCC 341; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 117; Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 277; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Satyavrat Singh (2014) 14 SCC 548 and State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 248 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Deepak Aggarwal vs Keshav Kaushik & Ors on 21 January, 2013

5. Appointment of penal lawyer or Government Counsel does not mean that they are appointed to a civil post and thereby got a vested right of continuity. The judgment of Johri Mal was followed in State of UP v. Rakesh Kumar Keshri (2011) 5 SCC 341; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 117; Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 277; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Satyavrat Singh (2014) 14 SCC 548 and State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 98 - R M Lodha - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr on 13 November, 2013

5. Appointment of penal lawyer or Government Counsel does not mean that they are appointed to a civil post and thereby got a vested right of continuity. The judgment of Johri Mal was followed in State of UP v. Rakesh Kumar Keshri (2011) 5 SCC 341; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 117; Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 277; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Satyavrat Singh (2014) 14 SCC 548 and State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and others (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 161 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Anr vs Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr on 30 March, 2016

In State of Punjab and others vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (2016) 6 SCC 1, Court observed that appointment of Government Counsel is not just a professional engagement but had a public element attached to it and therefore, it should be unaffected by any political or extraneous consideration and Government must engage most competent of the lawyers to represent them in Courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 117 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1