THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.21338 of 2009 & 428 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Government Pleader for the District Court Ranga Reddy District, through orders in G.O.Rt.No.1340, dated 15-09-2006, for a period of three years. Since no appointment was made against the resultant vacancy, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent, addressed letter dated 17-09-2009 to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, the 4th respondent, stating that the petitioner shall continue as the Government Pleader, till a regular incumbent is appointed. Through the same letter, he requested the District Judge, to forward a panel of eligible Advocates. About two weeks thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1596, dated 01-10-2009, appointing Sri Y. Kondal Reddy, Advocate, (for short ‘the 3rd respondent’), as In-charge Government Pleader. W.P.No.21338 of 2009 is filed against the said G.O. This Court ordered the production of relevant records, through its order dated 07-10-2009. The District Collector addressed another letter dated 29-12-2009, to the District Judge, making a reference to the G.O.Rt.No.1596, dated 01-10-2009, and a memo, dated 16-12-2009, issued by the Government, and observing that the 3rd respondent shall be the In-charge Government Pleader, and that the petitioner herein be relieved from that post. W.P.No.428 of 2000 is filed against it. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Law and Legislature, learned Special Counsel for the High Court, and Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent. The delay in initiating steps for appointing a Government Pleader, consequent on the expiry of the term of the petitioner, has given rise to several orders, at different levels, and some of them contradictory, to each other. The Government prescribed the procedure for appointment of Law Officers in G.O.Rt.No.187, dated 06- 12-2000. It does not have any statutory force, or backing, and appears to be a purely executive exercise. The procedure for appointment of Law Officers, particularly, in the Subordinate Courts, is, by and large, akin to the one, under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. Clause-11 provides for interim arrangements, and it reads as under: “Clause-11. Interim arrangements:- The Advocate-General or District Collectors may make interim arrangements in case of death, resignation, absence, expiry of term of Law Officer or where there is a necessity and urgency and obtain ratification from the Government”. The clause specifically confers power, either in the Advocate- General, or the District Collector, to make interim arrangements. The Government does not at all come into picture, at this stage. In exercise of power referable to this clause, the District Collector addressed letter dated 17-09-2009, directing that the petitioner shall continue as In-charge Government Pleader, till a regular incumbent is appointed. At least, at this stage, the procedure ought to have been hastened. Be it on account of the status, or the income, which it yields, the post of Government Pleader is attracting many. The 3rd respondent appears to have made efforts in this regard, for being appointed as an In-charge Government Pleader. Ignoring the fact that the power to appoint the In-charge Government Pleader rests with the Advocate-General, or the Collector, the Government has chosen to issue a G.O., appointing the 3rd respondent as In-charge Government Pleader. Even while the writ petition, challenging the said G.O., was pending, the Government issued memo dated 16-12- 2009, to the District Collector, requiring him to pass orders in this regard. The Collector, in turn, read the message, underlying the G.O., issued by the Government and other correspondence, and addressed a letter dated 29-12-2009 to the District Judge, directing that the 3rd respondent shall act as In-charge Government Pleader. The whole exercise is not in good taste. All the authorities were aware of the fact that the tenure of the petitioner as Government Pleader would end in September, 2009. Steps ought to have been taken to select the incumbent, well in advance. Assuming that there are valid reasons for the delay, the arrangement made by the District Collector, in appointing the petitioner as In-charge Government Pleader ought to have been continued, even while hastening the process. A parallel exercise in this regard emanates from the top of the hierarchy, in clear conflict with the order, dated 17-09-2009, issued by the District Collector, appointing the petitioner as an incharge G.P. The Government was expected to know the procedure before issuing this G.O. At least, when it was brought to its notice, that the District Collector has already made In-charge arrangements, the Government should have retreated its steps. Instead, the District Collector was exhorted to fall in line, and that resulted in the letter dated 29-12-2009, issued by the District Collector. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that no reference was made by the District Collector to his earlier order, dated 17-09-2009, and that no notice was issued to him, before his appointment was set at naught. The contentions, no doubt, have legal force. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, on account of the fact that the petitioner did not derive any right on the basis of the letter dated 17-09-2009. It is in the discretion of the District Collector to continue an existing incumbent, or a different Advocate, as In-charge Government Pleader. At any rate, it is ultimately for the Government and its agencies, to choose a person, in whom they have confidence. This Court would not interfere in such matters, unless flagrant violation of statutory provisions is pleaded and proved. It is brought to the notice of this Court, that the process for appointment of a regular incumbent is at an advanced stage. It does not augur well. Under these circumstances, the writ petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25-02-2010. KO