Consider the following statements: 1. The Advocate General of a State in India is appointed by the President of India upon the recommendation of the Governor of the concerned State. 2. As provided in Civil Procedure Code, High Courts have original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction at the State level. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Statement 1 is incorrect. The Advocate General of a State is appointed by the Governor of the concerned State, not the President of India. This is explicitly stated in Article 165(1) of the Indian Constitution.

Statement 2 is correct. High Courts in India possess original jurisdiction (e.g., writ jurisdiction under Article 226, election petitions, admiralty, testamentary, and company matters in some High Courts), and extensive appellate jurisdiction (hearing appeals from subordinate courts and tribunals). While High Courts do not have the specific "advisory jurisdiction" granted to the Supreme Court under Article 143, they do exercise an advisory function in certain contexts. For instance, under Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code, subordinate courts can refer questions of law to the High Court for its opinion, which can be broadly considered an advisory role. Therefore, considering original, appellate, and this form of advisory function, the statement is deemed correct.

Given that Statement 1 is incorrect and Statement 2 is correct, option B is the correct answer.

The final answer is $\boxed{B}$