THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 26666 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner claims that she was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month, vide G.O. Rt. No. 400 dated 27.02.2004, for a period of three years or till the said Court is abolished or shifted from the existing place, whichever is earlier. She states that, even though the term of three years expired by 27.02.2007, she has been continuing in the said post and she was paid remuneration till the end of October 2007 only. Therefore, she submitted several representations requesting the authorities to pay her remuneration from November 2007 onwards and permit her to hold that post till a regular officer is appointed thereto by the competent authority. And it is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering her representations, the Director of Prosecutions, A.P., Hyderabad, issued the impugned proceedings dated 06.10.2010, terminating her services and placing the 4th respondent herein, in- charge to the subject post, subject to ratification by the Government. Aggrieved thereby, she filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for Home and Revenue. Admittedly, the term of the petitioner as Additional Public Prosecutor of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Rajahmundry, expired in the year 2007 itself. However, without there being any orders from the competent authority permitting her to continue in the said post, she has been continuing in that post even after expiry of her term on 27.02.2007. In the absence of any order issued by the competent authority permitting her to continue in the post even after expiry of her term, the petitioner cannot be said to have any right, much less legal right, to continue in the post. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned proceedings issued by the Director of Prosecutions, appointing the 4th respondent as in-charge public prosecutor to the court subject to ratification by the Government. However, insofar as payment of remuneration from November, 2007 is concerned, the respondents shall pay the same, if the petitioner is entitled to under law. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 27th October, 2010 IBL