IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8497 of 2001 Between: Devireddy Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Malakonda Reddy, R/o. Ongole, Prakasham District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Law, Legislative Affairs and (Home) Justice Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Magistrate and Collector, Ongole, Prakasham District. 3 S.Nirmala Devi, W/o. D.Ramesh, Ongole, Prakasham District. .....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 issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No.282 Law (L.A. & J Courts.A.2) Department, dated 1- 3-2001 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to public interest and in violation of provisions of Sec.24(4) of Cr.P.C. as also instructions in G.O.Ms.No. 187 Law (L) Department, dated 6-12-2000 and provisions of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and to pass appropriate orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a practicing advocate at Ongole. He is aggrieved by the Government Orders in G.O.Rt.No.282, dated 01.03.2001, whereby and whereunder the third respondent herein was appointed as a Public Prosecutor for the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasham District, for a period of three years from the date of taking charge of the post. Going by the orders, in all probability, the third respondent completed her term and a new Public Prosecutor must have been appointed. In that view of the matter, leaving open all the questions raised in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.06.2005 vs To 1 The Secretary to Government, Law, Legislative Affairs and (Home) Justice Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Magistrate and Collector, Ongole, Prakasham District. 3 2 CCs to the Government Pleader for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT). 4 2 CD copies.