IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.67 of 2011 ====================================================== Madhuresh Singh, S/o Sri N.N.Singh, Chamber No. 137, Bihar Bar Council Bhawan, Patna High Court, Patna. ……. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Law Secretary –cum-Legal Remembrance, Government of Bihar, Patna, 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna through its Secretary. 5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. ……… Respondents. ====================================================== APPEARANCE: For the Petitioner : Mr. Chakrapani with Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AAG-1. For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6. 22.04.2011 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Madhuresh Singh to challenge the advertisement published by the Bihar Public Service Commission on 28th March 2009 in respect of recruitment of Assistant Prosecution Officer under the State of Bihar. The qualification required for appointment as Assistant Prosecution Officer is a degree in law of any recognized university. Learned Advocate Mr. Chakrapani appears for the writ petitioner. He has assailed the eligibility criteria set out 2 for appointment as Assistant Prosecution Officer. He has submitted that the Assistant Prosecution Officers represent the State Government in criminal prosecution. It is, therefore, imperative that the Assistant Prosecution Officers are not only the law graduates but are also enrolled with the State Bar Council. In support of his arguments he has relied upon Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Sections 24, 25 and 25(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has also drawn analogy with the Public Prosecutors. We see no substance in the arguments advanced by Mr. Chakrapani. None of the aforesaid provisions supports the submission of Mr. Chakrapani. Besides, the Assistant Prosecution Officers are the servants of the State Government. The Advocates enrolled with the State Bar Council are authorised to represent a litigant in a court of law and are debarred from accepting any employment. We see no merit in this writ petition. The petition is dismissed in limine. Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran,J)