Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122018-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21764 of 2025 Petitioner :- Akash Khandelwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishikesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Mr. Rishikesh Tripathi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was duly empaneled, as would appear from communication dated 24th March, 2025. On impugned direction issued by respondent no.3 (the District Magistrate), his briefs were taken away. The direction has been challenged as it amounts to termination of his empanelment. He relies on view taken by this Court in Virendra Pal Singh Vs. State of UP reported in 2003 All. L.J. 2621, paragraph 30(2), reproduced below. "30. ..... (2) If the procedure of the L.R. Manual was followed in making the initial appointment, and if a termination order is passed while the term of the incumbent is continuing, such termination will be illegal unless it was done on the recommendation of the District Judge, or if the initial appointment extension itself was done without following the procedure in the L.R. Manual. In this connection we may refer to the Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association, 1994 (2) SCC 204 : AIR 1994 SC 1654 in which it was observed: "Those who come to be appointed by such arbitrary procedure can hardly complain if the termination of their appointment is equally arbitrary. Those who come by the back door have to go by the same door" (vide para 19 of the judgment)." 2. Mr. Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and opposes the writ petition. 3. Empanelment of a learned advocate by the State is for purpose of said learned advocate receiving briefs, to urge cases in them on behalf of the Government. It is a situation entirely at the pleasure of the empaneling authority. Impugned direction in any event is not one of termination of empanelment. Virendra Pal Singh (supra) does not apply in the facts. 4. We find no merit in the writ petition. 5. Mr. Tripathi submits further, his client will work with application and sincerity and as such there be direction for allotment of fresh briefs. His submission stands recorded. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Shahroz (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad