IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 192 (S/S) of 2008 1. Birendra Singh Rawat S/o Sri Surat Singh Rawat, R/o F&G Street No. 3, Open Market, Bourari, New Tehri, District-Tehri Garhwal. 2. Ramesh Chandra Sanwal S/o Sri Amba Dutt, R/o Near GIR Garur, District Bageshwar (UK). 3. Sudarshan Singh S/o Sri Prithivi Singh, R/o Village Devli, P.O. Ladoli, District Rudraprayag. ………Petitioners. Versus 1. Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Secretary, Nayay and Vidhi Paramarshi (LR), Uttarakhand, Dehradun. ……...Respondents. Shri S. N. Babulkar, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri Anil K. Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.03.2008, passed by respondent No. 1, directing District Magistrate, to send the panel of names by 15.03.2008, for appointment of Assistant Prosecution Officers. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners are working as Additional Prosecution Officers under orders of State Government. Annexure-2 to the writ petition shows that the petitioners were included in the panel of Additional Public Prosecutors for one year. Condition No. 2 in their appointment letter itself show that their services can be dispensed with at any time without assigning any reason. Their appointment made on 04.08.2006, appears to have been extended vide letter dated 18.12.2007, by the Government (copy of which is annexure-3 to the writ petition) extending the period till 31.03.2008 on the same condition that their engagement in the panel can be terminated at any time. Now by the order dated 10.03.2008, the Government has asked District Magistrate to send the panel of names for appointment as Additional Prosecutor Officers. 4. Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prescribes procedure for appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. Sub- section (3), Sub-section (4) and Sub-section (5) of Section 24, are being reproduced below:- “(3) For every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district: Provided that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may be, appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, for another district. (4) The District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion, fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. (5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the 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-section (4).” The above provision clearly shows that the State Government has power to ask for the panel of names and District Magistrate is authorized to send the names of the proposed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that it is a Secretary, Judicial and L.R., who has poser to ask for the names and not the Home Secretary. Having gone through the impugned letter, this Court does not find substance in the argument, as the letter sent by the Government itself shows that the names are to be made available to the judicial department and Home Department of the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the adhoc appointment cannot be replaced by fresh adhoc appointment. This Court is of the view that the petitioners themselves got appointed under the aforesaid provision of law by the procedure adopted by the Government, now they cannot say that the same cannot be applied for others. Apart from this, Government has not asked the District Magistrate not to include the names of the petitioners. 6. In the above circumstances, in view of the terms and conditions on which the petitioners were empanelled, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned letter dated 10.03.2008, issued by the Government. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Stay application No. 1277 of 2008, stands disposed of) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 17.03.2008 Sweta