IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18755 of 2008 1. Jang Bahadur Singh, Advocate, Civil Court, Nawadah son of late Kailash Singh, resident of village Gonawan, P.O. Gonawan, P.S. Nawadah, District Nawadah, 2. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate, Civil Court, Nawadah son of late Ram Lakhan Prasad, resident of village Badlu Bigha, P.S. Nardiganj, District Nawadah, 3.Ram Kumar, Advocate, Civil Court, Nawadah, son of Sri Bihari Prasad, resident of village Gogan, P.S. Nemdarganj, P.S. Akabarpur, District Nawadah… … Petitioners versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Law(Justice) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya(Bihar), 3. The Collector, Nawadah, District Nawadah, 4. Sri Bharat Prasad, Advocate, Enrollment no. 4507/96 Civil Court, Nawadah(Bihar), 5. Sri Saryu Prasad Yadav, Advocate, Enrollment no. 2266/90, Civil Court, Nawadah(Bihar), 6. Sri Om Prakash Chaurasia, Advocate, Enrollment no. 1052/98, Civil Court, Nawadah(Bihar), 7. Sri Navendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Enrollment no. 119/67, Civil Court, Nawadah(Bihar), 8. Md. Faiaz Ahmad, Advocate, Enrollment no. 1348/95, Civil Court, Nawadah(Bihar), 9. Sri Arjun Singh, Advocate, Enrollment no. 1629/69, Civil Court, Nawadah(Bihar), 10. Smt. Ranjana Sinha, Advocate, Enrollment no. 5485/95, Civil Court, Nawadah(Bihar), For the Petitioners: Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate, For the S t a t e : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG I With Mr. Ram Prasad Singh, AC to AAG I ….. 4 25.03.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. This writ petition relates to appointment of Government Pleader in the District of Nawadah. 2 It is the case of the petitioner that the District & Sessions Judge recommended names of seven persons for appointment of Government Pleader in the District of Nawadah and out of seven names, the Collector of the District forwarded the names of five persons and thereafter two more names were sent by the Collector including the name of Bharat Prasad, who was appointed as the Government Pleader and his name was earlier not consulted with the District & Sessions Judge, and, therefore, his appointment as such is illegal Bharat Prasad has been made respondent no. 4 in this writ application. Rule 138 of the Bihar Practice & Procedure Manual(hereinafter to be referred to as “Manual”) reads as follows:- “138. Appointment to be made after inviting applications.—Whenever the post of Public Prosecutor or Government Pleader or the combined post of Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor becomes vacant, the District Officer shall invite applications for the post four months before the expiry of the term of appointment of the existing incumbent. The District Officer shall consult the District and Sessions Judge about the applications received by him and within two months of inviting the applications, shall submit them with his recommendation through the Divisional Commissioner to the Legal Remembrancer for the orders of Government.” 3 In the present case, as per the Rules, applications for appointment of Government Pleader were invited and on receipt of the applications for such appointment, the District & Sessions Judge was consulted and names of seven persons were recommended to the Legal Remembrancer of the respective Government. It is the contention of the petitioner that 35 applicants applied for appointment of Government Pleader. It appears that out of 35 applicants, seven suitable names were forwarded by the Collector to the District & Sessions Judge. It also appears that out of seven names, subsequently, two suitable names were recommended including the name of Bharat Prasad, who is respondent no. 4 in this writ application by the Collector of the District in consultation with the District & Sessions Judge for appointment of Government Pleader. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this application. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) 4