IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18188 of 2008 Between: Kanukuntla Ravinder Reddy S/o. Linga Reddy R/o. Asifabad, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary, Legislative Affairs & Justice, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad. 3 J. Shyam Kumar, IIIrd Addl. District and Sessions Judge (F T C), Asifabad, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following : ORDER: The only ground, on which the petitioner questioned the appointment of respondent No.3 as Additional Public Prosecutor to the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Asifabad, is that on the date when respondent No.3 sent his bio-data to the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Asifabad, he did not complete seven years of standing, as required under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). But the fact, which is not in dispute, is that the District Collector sent the panel containing the names of Advocates to the State Government on 09-04-2008. On the petitioner’s own averments, respondent No.3 was enrolled as Advocate on 01-03-2001 and he completed seven years of standing, when the District Collector sent the panel to the State Government. Under Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the District. As respondent No.3 completed seven years of standing by the time, the District Magistrate prepared the panel of names, I do not find any reason to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 was not qualified to be appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor. In my considered view, the relevant date, for judging eligibility of a person to be empanelled, is the date on which the District Magistrate prepares the panel. As, admittedly, respondent No.3 acquired the eligibility as on the date of preparation of panel by the District Magistrate, his appointment cannot be said to have suffered from any illegality. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.23678 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 8th June, 2009 lur