IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12772 of 2004 Between: K.Venkata Ramaiah, s/o K.Narayana, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary Home Law (L.A.&J Courts A2) department. 2 The District Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 The Director of Prosecution, Lakdikapool, DGP Office, Complex, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction particularly a writ of mandamus, declaring the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings Rc.C5 196/M/99 dt.6-7-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, consequently set-aside the impugned order direct respondents to continue the petitioner as Addl.Public Prosecutor for Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Court till the regular Public Prosecutor is appointed and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.DASARADHA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12772 of 2004 O R D E R: It is the case of the petitioner that he was practicing Advocate in Kurnool Town and he was appointed by the government as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, vide G.O.Ms.No.128 Home (Courts-C) Department, dated 14.03.1996 for a period of three years on a fixed remuneration of Rs.2,000/- per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month. It is stated that the said appointment was issued in accordance with Sec.24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with G.O.Ms.No.57 Law Department dated 16.03.1990 and thereafter the Government extended the term by G.O.Rt.No.535 Law (L.A.&J.Court’s A2) Department dated 27.04.2000, till the alternative arrangements are made, continue the petitioner as an Additional Public Prosecutor. It is stated that the Collector is the only recommending authority while forwarding the panel of the Advocates in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge and the Government is the appointing authority. But it is stated that the District Collector passed the impugned order dated 06.07.2004, terminating the engagement of the petitioner as Law Officer, as period of six years is over by 24.03.2002 and one L.Hariharanath Reddy was kept incharge to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the place of the petitioner. It is stated that as and when the term is expired, it is for the Government to appoint new incumbent and till then the existing prosecutors are entitled to continue. It is not in dispute that the appointing authority as well as terminating authority is the Government on the recommendation of the District and Sessions Judge and the Collector among the panel of the Advocates. In the present writ petition, the question that arise for consideration is whether the District Collector has got independent power to terminate the petitioner or under the directions of the Government. A perusal of the impugned order itself goes to show that the Government in Memo No.915/LSP/RL/L1/02, dated 01.07.2002 directed the 2nd respondent-District Collector to terminate the engagement of a Law Officer appointed in Subordinate Courts after expiry of 6 years in office at a stretch. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Law Officer in 1996 and 3 years term was expired by 24.03.1999 and another three years term to complete six years was also expired by 24.03.2002, and therefore, the Collector has acted upon the orders of the Government in Memo dated 01.07.2002, terminating the existing Additional Public Prosecutor and keeping another Advocate as incharge in that post. The learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the termination of the petitioner cannot be held as illegal as the service of the petitioner was terminated as per the instructions of the Government. It is stated that even the Collector is not entitled to keep any person as incharge to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. Sec.24(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure goes to show that for every District, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the District, and under Sec.24(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of the names of persons, who are, in his opinion, fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the District. Under Sec.24(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person shall be appointed by the State Government as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the District, unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under Sub Sec. (4) of Sec.24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the District Collector has no right to terminate his services as he was appointed by the Government and the Government alone is empowered either to terminate his services or to appoint any new person. It is stated that as and when another Advocate is appointed, automatically the extension of the petitioner to function as Additional Public Prosecutor gets terminated as he has no right to continue in the said post. But it is stated that the District Collector has no independent power to appoint another Advocate, keeping him as incharge Additional Public Prosecutor. No counter is forthcoming from the Government, but a counter has been filed by the District Collector, stating that he has terminated the engagement of the petitioner pursuant to the Government Memo dated 01.07.2002 as no person can continue more than six years at a stretch. Therefore, he has terminated the services of the petitioner by the impugned order. I have considered the rival contentions and I am of the opinion that the Government alone is competent authority to appoint Additional Public Prosecutors from among panel of the Advocates and it is for the Government to make alternative arrangements, keeping incharge of the post, and unless the Government specifically authorises to keep any person incharge, I am of the opinion that the District Collector has no independent role to play either to terminate or keep any other Advocate as incharge Additional Public Prosecutor. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order. However, it is made clear that under the guise of interim orders, the petitioner has no right to continue in the existing post as his term has already expired long back. It appears that no further steps have been taken by the Government for the appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor in the place of the petitioner. Having regarding to the facts of the case, the 2nd respondent is directed to forthwith send the panel of Advocates in consultation of the District and Sessions Judge so as to enable the Government to appoint an Additional Public Prosecutor in the place of the petitioner, and till then, the existing arrangement made as on date, shall continue. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 24.04.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary Home Law (L.A.&J Courts A2) department. 2 The District Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 The Director of Prosecution, Lakdikapool, DGP Office, Complex, Hyderabad. 5.2CCs to 6.2CD copies