IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9311 of 2008 Between: Mr. Akula Venkataramaiah … Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Law (Legislative Affairs & Justice/Home/Courts./A1) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A. Eswas for Sri A. Sudhakar Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Law & Legislative Affairs This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9311 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings dated 06.12.2007 issued by respondent No.1 and consequential order dated 10.12.2007 issued by respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to continue him as Additional Public Prosecutor in the I Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Machilipatnam, Krishna District till a regular appointment is made. Heard Sri A. Eswar representing Sri A. Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna for a term of three years or till the termination of his services, whichever is earlier, on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner’s term expired on 05.12.2007. On 06.12.2007, evidently the District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam, appointed one Sri Mekala Srinivasu, Additional Public prosecutor, VI Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam as in-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna from 08.12.2007 till the regular appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor is made by the Government or till further orders are received from the Government. On the same day, the Government kept Sri S. Malleswara Rao, respondent No.3, Public Prosecutor, District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, as Full Additional Charge of the said post of Additional Public Prosecutor till a regular Public Prosecutor is appointed or termination of his services, whichever is earlier. Following the same, the District Collector issued orders on 10.12.2007 to effectuate the said order of the Government. These orders are questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to have continued the petitioner as Additional Public Prosecutor till a regular Additional Public Prosecutor is appointed. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pathuri Venkateswarlu v. Government of A.P. and others[1]. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to accept the same. A perusal of order of appointment of the petitioner clearly shows that his tenure is limited to three years or till the termination of his services, whichever is earlier. Therefore, after the expiry of three years period, the petitioner has no right much less a legally enforceable right to insist that he should be continued as Additional Public Prosecutor till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis. I have carefully perused the judgment of this Court in Pathuri Venkateswarlu (supra) and I am convinced that the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. In the said case, the petitioner therein was initially appointed as Public Prosecutor for a period of three years, thereafter he was appointed for another term of three years vide G.O.Rt.No.917 dated 22.06.2001, wherein it is mentioned that if by the time of expiry of the term of three years no appointment of a successor to the said post is made by the Government, the said prosecutor shall continue to function till a successor so appointed assumes office. Interpreting the said term of appointment, this Court held that the petitioner is entitled to continue in office till a successor is appointed in his place and assumes charge. It is significant to notice the following observation of the learned Judge: “If the appointment was for three years and the G.O. is silent as to the consequences that are to follow after expiry of the said period, the petitioner cannot claim any right to remain in the office, after expiry of three years.” The present case falls in the situation, which the learned Judge referred to in the above-reproduced observation. As noted above, the appointment order is clear and unambiguous to the effect that the term of office of the petitioner is three years or till termination of his services, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right on the expiry of three years. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12298 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.04.2008 ES [1] 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 658 (AP)