293wp1186.11.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1186 of 2011 (Smt. Nanda Moreshwar Fule .vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 29/03/2011. Heard Mr. D.A.Sonwane, Adv. for the petitioner and Mr.N.S.Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1. This petition is directed against the impugned order dt. 22.6.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Gadchiroli whereby services of the petitioner as an Assistant Public Prosecutor came to be dispensed with. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed by the District Magistrate by exercising power u/s. 25(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which reads thus: “ Where no Assistant Public Prosecutor is available for the purposes of any particular case, the District Magistrate may appoint any other person to be the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of that case : 293wp1186.11.odt 2 . Provided that a police officer shall not be so appointed - (a) if he has taken any part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted; or (b) if he is below the rank of Inspector.” The language of the provision is loud and clear and only entitles the District Magistrate to appoint an Assistant Public Prosecutor in case the Regular Public Prosecutor is not available and that too, as incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor, for a particular case. It is, therefore, evident that the District Magistrate is only entitled to appoint an Assistant Public Prosecutor as incharge of the case in the contingency mentioned in sub-clause (3) of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appointment undoubtedly is temporary and ad-hoc and does not create any right to claim permanency and therefore, in the instant case, perusal of the order would show that appointment of the petitioner was temporary and ad-hoc made by the District Magistrate in exercise of power conferred upon him u/s. 293wp1186.11.odt 3 . 25(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, the action taken by the District Magistrate vide impugned order is just and proper and is sustainable in law. The petition suffers from lack of merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais