IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16722 of 2008 Between: Kavala Nageswara Rao S/o. Gopaiah R/o. Kovvur , West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government legislative Affairs Law and Justice Department, Secretariat, Saifabad,Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru. 3 The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direcdtion more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not empanelling and not considering Petitioner's name for appointment as Additional public Prosecutor for the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge at Kovvur as illegal, irregular, violative of the Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Law oﬃcers (Appointment on Condition of Services) Instructions 2000 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to empanel and consider Petitioner's name for appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor (tenure) for the 2nd term for the court of Assistant Sessions Judge at Kovvur and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: (SC FOR APHC)D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 and 2: G.P. for Home The Court made the following at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved that the 3rd respondent has not included his name in a panel forwarded to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent, for appointment to the oﬃce of Additional Public Prosecutor for the court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District. By an order in G.O.Rt.No.1029 dated 4.6.2005, the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Public Prosecutor on a three-year tenure for the court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur. The tenure came to an end on 5.6.2008. The 1st respondent is pleaded to have called for a panel of 5 names of Advocates for being considered for appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor to the vacancy consequent on the expiry of the tenure of the petitioner. Consequently, the 3rd respondent called for bio-data, from the practising advocates of the Kovvur bar association. The petitioner also submitted an application, hopeful of being considered for a second term. On coming to “learn!” that his name did not ﬁnd place in the panel forwarded by the 3rd respondent for eventual consideration by the 1st respondent, the petitioner pleads to have “rushed to the second respondent with a request to empanel him.” The 2nd respondent did not respond. The petitioner is thus before this Court, claiming to have worked “eﬃciently with high rate of success and good performance”. Sri Sitaram Chaparla, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in accordance with the Instructions regarding the Appointment and Conditions of Service of Andhra Pradesh Law Oﬃcers, spelt out in G.O.Ms.No. 187, Law (L), dated 6.12.2000 qua Instruction No.8, law oﬃcers shall ordinarily be appointed for a term of three years and oﬃcers so appointed may be considered for a second term, if the Government are satisﬁed that he has proven eﬃciency, high rate of success and good performance and for a third term in exceptional cases. The proviso to Instruction No.8 is relied upon by Sri Sitaram Chaparla in support of the claim in the Writ Petition; and it reads as under: “Provided that Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders, Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors in Subordinate Courts may be considered for appointment for a second term if their performance is very good and in the case of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes if their performance is satisfactory.” The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. It is the petitioner’s contention that his performance was not only of a very high standard i.e., “eﬃciently with high rate of success and good performance”, but even if his performance were considered merely as satisfactory, in terms of the proviso to Instruction No.8, he ought to have been considered for a second term. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that since on his own assessment his performance was exemplary or of a very high standard and therefore he ought to have been considered for the second term and the 3rd respondent ought to have included his name in the panel forwarded to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent, is a contention that does not commend acceptance. It is always open to the 1st respondent-Government to have suo motu considered the case of the petitioner for grant of a second term, in view of the Instructions for Appointment and Conditions of Service of Law Oﬃcers issued in G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 6.12.2000. For considering grant of a second term, the 1st respondent may consider appropriate inputs including by calling a report from the 3rd respondent. But where the ﬁrst respondent does not consider grant of a second term, then the whole exercise of sending up a panel by the 3rd respondent through the 2nd respondent for appointment as Government counsel is an exercise which involves an assessment by the 3rd respondent after calling for information regarding the advocates practising in the Court. If no such assessment function inheres in the 3rd respondent, then the 3rd respondent would not be sending up a panel but a neutral but comprehensive list of all advocates practising in the Court, as collected from the local bar association. Such a process would not involve any application of the judicial mind or an assessment of the quality of the advocates performing or practising in the 3rd respondent’s Court. Since it is conceded on behalf of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is required to send up a panel of 5 names, necessarily impregnated into that requirement, is an assessment matrix that requires the 3rd respondent to make a choice amongst the advocates practising in the Court as to which 5 persons are best suited for performing the role of Government counsel. The 3rd respondent therefore does not perform a mechanical or unskilled role of merely forwarding the bio-data of all the applicants nor is it legitimate to expect him to choose 5 persons for inclusion in the panel, on the basis of a lottery. A value assessment is invariably involved and the rational choice of the 3rd respondent is inevitable. It is not the case of the petitioner that the oﬃce of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of the Principal Assistant Judge, Kovvur, is earmarked for any reserved category. If it is not earmarked for any reserved category, then the 3rd respondent would have to make an assessment as to the ﬁve best amongst the advocates practising in the Court, from those who are willing to serve as Additional Public Prosecutors, such willingness demonstrated by submission of applications. On the aforesaid analysis, the claim of the petitioner that since an Additional Public Prosecutor who has served one term is theoretically eligible to be considered for a second term, the 3rd respondent is obligated to invariably include the name of such earlier Additional Public Prosecutor (who has served only one term), in the panel of names for consideration, is a contention that does not merit acceptance. There are no merits. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for Respondents 1 & 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. There shall however be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 01.08.2008 cvm