••v^!l?p'. ^ s-:^:^;^1'^;^s^^^^s'g^g3r '[5'^^''?.'^s^- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OFCHHATnSGARH 1 AT BIl.ASPtlR fC.G.) Dlrtsion Bandi APPELLANTS ^ €^ ,'a ^...y .<5-y-s!r ^^../ W.A. N0. :1 ^- 72009 Chandrahas Kashyap, aged aboyt 36 years, by occupation-Advocate, S/o. Maniram Kashyap, R/o. C/o. V.R. Sahu, Near Parmeshwari Vidyalaya, Imalibhata, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. "' Shiv Kumar Sahu, aged about 39 years, By Occupation-Advocate, S/o. Sukhiram Sahu, R/o. Village Machewa, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS l^ :1 ' TheState of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretary, Ministry of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) 2. ' Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through : Its Chairman, Azad Bhagat Singh Chowk, Raipur' , 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Law, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 CLAUSE flV OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH C6URT fAPPEAL TO DIVISlON BENCmACT.2006 "^^ i] i ii F^- 8... HICHCOVirFeFCIMUCTnSttARH^r^BIUffiPUa 0. B: Uon'ble ShriJLN. Oudtluu. Mon'bleSlwi Pradianfrl&unwllhlira. Writ Anperi NeA6/09 AppeUants RawioirfBnta ChandrahmiKiMhyifnA<inoUM» v«. iaie aate of Ghhrtttogm'h.wid Om. ADpearance: Shrl Parag Kotecha and Shrl Raghvendra Pradhad, counset for the appelfants. Shrl SumeshB^j^t, GovemmiBntAdvocatttwltbShrt/yit Singh, Panel lawyerfortheState/rap«KlentSTio.t&3. Shri Gtianshyani Patel, counsel for respondent Ne^. Court^ADiwaKt* Ohriaaanaehcniljftefc 2tt86 ORALORDER (05.04.2010) Per I.M.OUDDUSI. 3 1. Heard counsel for the.parties^at^ength. 2. This Writ Appeal ftas been flied agdnst the Impuffled order Ated 28/02/09 passed by tearned Slngle Aidge tfl Wrlt PetiUon (S)No. 59/08. 3. ais alleged In the writ appeal tiiat th«writ appellantt were selected by Ahe Putollc Servlce &>mmlsston ta a selectlon process conducled in the y^r 2006f&Ftt i>ost of Assistant Dls|rid: Publte Proseeyfion Offic» (ADPPG^ vide advertlsement dated 2A/09/06, Issued by the Chhattlsgarh Lok Sewa Ayog, tn whlch.the total nurBber^if -" posts adveitlsed was 32 with a condltion ^hat^e nun'iber ^ 5. w.A.yo.www of vacandes may vary. Secendly thetr names weia found place in the niarlt list, but they were not glven appoln&nents and the Dlstrlct Maglstrates wew cUracted by the State Government to make ^ipofnihnent under sectlon 25 ofthe Cr;P.C. on contract basls. TIrreafter, th« DlstrictMaglstFate ath/ertlsed the vacancfs fornialdng contractual^ppolnlments on 12/14.12.07 foraperiodof one year. a has been menttoned that tbeyost ofADPPO Is a Class'H Gazetted postaad te iwlthln the purvtewof the PubBc Service Commlsslon, therafore In the year 2006, the PubUc Serwtee Commlsslon, i^sr maldng sele^lon, made recommefltlaHons to ihe Strte Sw^ernment submtttlng merit Itet of 105 candldates l^ resp«tof alt categories, fnduding reservedcategory candlelates. Tlie leamed Stngle Judge has In htejudgn»ntand order observed thatthe State Govemment alone Is campdent to appolnt the Asstetarit PubUc Prosecutors w AWPOs. However, In accordancewlth theabove quoted iwevlslons, in a situationwhere noAPP Is avatlabte for the purpose of any partlcular case, the Dlstrict MaglstFate may appoW any other person to be the APP In charga af that case alone. The Dtstrlct MagIstFate eannot appolnt theADPPOs, In general, on contract basls under^^^^cUon 25 of Q'.P.C. However, the leaiTted SlogleJudgahas cBrectwJ thafcthe contract appotntees may conanuetNl regiriar a^elntmenfe Is made through proper selectiOB by the PuWlc Seivtaft Commlsslon or tenn of extenston of tb& candMatet? appolnted on contracttoaslslsover,whlcheverlseaflter. Before proceedlng ftjrther, It Is necessary to pwuse th» provislons of sectlon 25 of CrJ».C. whlch are 4|»»tedas under: ' n25. toiwrtmrt PuMi&n'wculw-Ca^ "WN^ State Cdvinnwnt diaB a|»palnt1w mwBry dtetrict une «r^nKini Ammrtant fuWic ^> w^'^^^ ''sssxss^ s;a'^^^S^s T r W.A.No.86/2009 f^ Pnweuitoni lar contlucttaa pea—cirton* m the Court* t»flilaoteto'atas. (1-A) The Gwrtrri 6av«Nn—nfcnMB^ apptrint one or mure Asdatamt ffuWte ProaacMkon A*r the puqNMie <rf conduc*infl any cane or da— irf^caaef hi UMS CeUrtoal MagaBtraitafc (2) Sava a«eU—Fwi— piuwittod h»•ub- •ectton (3), no puflice officer •faaM ta •Ugibto 1» be ^tpointod <• an ^torirtNrt PubUc PnMMMCutor. (3) KWiwa n®AmrirtmnfrPubUc I^BMeutai' is awaUabto fer UM» pui'poms» of any |»articulm- .caa^ llie Cnhict <teyMrart» may an»ointai^r ottw pcnwm to b«tha A—wtantPtAHc Pnfcutor li»chw-u^ thatcase; Pnwiitod Uwk • polw •fBcw •hrit not be «o^ipDuntad- <a) if he *— taifcui <ny ^pul in Ahe inwe«tig^on intu thu oftmiG« imlth mipcck tn nrtiirt- th» acuNNfc i» bdng pro—oitedrttr Cb) iFiiei«belewttaBanl(«*fJbi^»do». 6. A perusal of the above quoted prQvlslons o( sectlon 25(3) Cr.P.C. would show that the Dlstrict Magtstrats has haen glven powers to appolnt a person to be Asslsfnt RuWlc Prosecutor In chaige ofthat case wlth a«MMllUen that where no Assistant Public Presecutor Is avattobls for the purpose of any partlcular case. The expresslon of words "any other person" sho'uis that tfa person In chan^ ofa partlcular case is not avallable, only In that case ai^ other person be appotnted to be PuUlc Prosrcatortn charge of that case. Jhe LegidatUFe bas taken eare ef wflffiiig the words "any other^erson"-^id -as such ere ttdlffiB-ence between the phrases "any other persoi^ mtf "a pwsoii". The phrase"any other person' ctenotes the sub^ttutfrof »s person and as such If any person appolnted »sArefaiant 4 W.ANo.86(20fi9 Pubtlc Prosecutor to conttuct a case Is not awajjabto, only In that drcumstaace, ttie Dl^rtct Ma^strate can appolnt any otfter person tn ftls place te act as AaBtetoflt NiNlc Prosecutorln chargeof thatcase. Therefore, a plaln readtng ofs«tton25 CF.P.C, sho»wstbat the State Govemment In every Dl^rict of the Strte and the Central Govemmeirt, afe wnpowewd to mafca appolntments of one or more Asslsfamt PuMfe Prosecutots as a whote. The dlffierence bi appolntmenfc l^ th< Sta<» and the Central Govemment Is th^ the Strte Gsvecnment to appolnt In eaeb dfstFlct of the Stat^ <w» or more Assistant PubWc Prosecutore for conducURg the prosecuUon In the ceuits of Maglstrates, but tt Is not the obltgatlon of the central Gevemment to ai^olnt ene OF more publlc prosecutors tn "aach disUlct atid also e central Govemment may appirfnt the Assistenfe Publto ProseGUtor to comtuct any case or dws (^ cases In 1*» Courts of Maglsb'ates. The above power cf tlie Strta Government cannot be exerctee^ tey the DlslFtat Magistrate under sub-sedton .(3) efsecttei 25. %ar^we, the Dlstrict Maglstrate <a»n ocefdse <>wvers wAlcli are to be exerdsed in en'twgent cases wbere the Asslstont PutlUc Prosecutor to coBduct a parUcular case Is not-avllable. 8. It Is afso perUnent to mentlon tere that "PuWlc Prosecutor" has been deflnetlcin 2(u) of tfte Gode. <^ Criniinal Proeedun^ -accoFdlnff to «hfeh, the "BubUe Prosecutor" flaeans any |»rsen4ppotetod^ u^ter secUwi 24, and tnducte anypersonacSRgunder^'ie^tiadtensef a Publlc Prosecutor. Therrfora, If itte !%bMc PreMcvter dlrectsanyperson$oad;<sPuWk:Presecuter,the!samets jralld awolntment fti vtew of sectfen 2{u). Hiwe, tha PubBc Prosecutor appototod u/s 24 of Cr.P.G., has »^wer .ff^ W.A.NB.860B09 to dtrect any person to act as RabUc-nsseeNtor vdilch the DlstrlctMaglstratedoesnotenJ<»yui/s25ofCr.P.C. ; 9. In vlaw (rf the above <Usci®ston,w& am (n ftril a^emiieRt with the view taken by the learned Stogla Judga thafe the Dlstrlct Magldrate cannofe appolnt ADPPOs.to getwral on contract basls u/s 25(3) Cr.P.C. The leamed stnglejudge has also dlrected that the aM>otntments of ADPPOs on contract basis shall continue UB regular seteettoa Is made or tlti the end of the pertod of ®(tenslonof appoltment, whichever Is earller. 10. The servlce of ADPPOs are essentlal seivtee as the Coiyrts ofMaglstrates canftot remaln wltbout presecutlng ofRcer, and therefcre, the Courts may not ramaln wtthout a prosecuUng offlcer and It was nwessary to glwn sonr fltae to the State Govermnent to inake some •Itemallve arrangements and as sucA the leamed; slngte Judge spedflcally dtrected that the contractual appotntmeirts shall contlnue UB the end of the period tf ©ctwisfofrof these ADPPOs flranted atter the sxplry of the perlod <f thelr Inltlal appolntments, but the State Qowsmment has not made any altematlve arrangenwnts an* thelc appointments (rfADPPOs contteued even after ecptry of the period of ®rtenslon of thelr appotntments, w^ilcb appears to be vlolatfve of the dlfecttons of the leBrnad singlejudgeand we do not ctpect thls actlon by ttieaat* Govemment. 11. We have been Infbrmed By the leairned State Cwnsel that accordlng to hls Instructtons, the total number ofposte of ADPPOs are 193, out of whlch, only 51 are worklng ar>d thus there are 1,42 vacandes, oul of whlch, sdectloB w»s made by thePBbllc Servtce Commlsslen agalnst99 posts -t>y Issulng advertlsement, but the sald seleeUon yocess Is ''"^^'B^: "?^;-;.^^- ^' ».A.Ne,8ffi2<X» under challenge In W.P(S). No.638^2008, in wWch, the flnal arguments have tieen heard and tfte ludgmetrt has been reserved and the Interlm order was al») granted theretn. The statenrent of the laamad counsel fl»r tbe Publlc ServlceCommlsslon wasalso recorded In tliecourt proceailngs by thls Court that "leamed cQUtsal appearing for the Publlc Service Comml^lon subirrfts that no results shall be dedared U11 the next dateof hearing.* Any how, slnce the Judgment has been reserved, the State had to make an alternaUve arrangCTaent complyli^ with Ur orders passed by the leamed slngle Sudge as menttoned above. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants subn^s that the a;ate Government has acted upon the seleetlon Ust cf 2006, In which, thelr names flnd place by maklng appbliitments of Mr. RaJ Kumar Mlshra, Mr. Stok Shrtvastava, Mr. Krlshna Kumar Chaturvsdl and Mtss. Seema 3agdall» on 28.7.2009 and as such once the select llst <rf 2006 was being acted upon In 2009, there was no occaslon for the Distrlct Magistrate to make appointments en contract basis. 13. Though the above facts could be ralsed by the wrtt appellants at ttie Inlttat stage but the same eannot be consldered in the Instant wrttappeal as thosecenteBtlons are not avallable to thewrit petltien. Ther<rfore, forthat purpose, It wlll be open for thswrit appeltants to awreach the State Gevemment orto tafcereeourse teany ftirthw provlslons oflaw, if they are so advlsed. 14. Learned counsel for U»e wfftt appdlants rtates thatthe appellante shatl spproach tbe State Govarnnwntfcy flllng representatlons withln a week. If It is so, the Stata Govemment shatl eenslda" the same In the llght o^ tfte ^ observaHon made abowe, as earty as posstNe, nrtthln a 11'.! B^y^i .-ST^.il "'-^? "* Slti &... •% "^ ^} W.A.N0.86Q009 M'Gowri/ Rao palod of one month from the d»te of movtng such representattens. 15. The wrlt appeal stands dleposed of wlth the above - dlpactlon. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- ' I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge