IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.2209 of 2010 Between: Garnepudi Alexander Sudhakar. … Petitioner And The State Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 and R.2. Sri O.Manohar Reddy for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 21-1-2010, whereby respondent No.2 placed respondent No.3 as incharge of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor of XIII Additional District and Sessions Court, Narsaraopet, Guntur. I have heard Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner is functioning as Additional Assistant Public Prosecutor of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Narsaraopet, having been appointed for a specific term under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”). A new Court, viz., XIII Additional District and Sessions Court was constituted for Narsaraopet. As appointment of a regular Additional Public Prosecutor will take time, respondent No.2 issued proceedings, dated 2-1-2010, placing the petitioner as incharge of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor for the said newly constituted Court. However, by proceedings, dated 21- 1-2010, the said proceedings were superseded and respondent No.2 kept respondent No.3 as incharge of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent No.2 in replacing the petitioner with respondent No.3 is arbitrary and no reasons have been assigned therefor. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submitted that as the petitioner was only an Additional Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Court of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet, he ought not to have been appointed as incharge of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet; and that obviously realizing this mistake, respondent No.2 has superseded his earlier proceedings and placed respondent No.3 as incharge of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet in the place of the petitioner. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In my opinion, the petitioner has no vested right to question the impugned order. The proceedings, by which the petitioner was kept incharge of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor, were issued only as a temporary arrangement to meet the immediate exigency, pending appointment of a regular Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner’s substantive post being the Additional Assistant Public Prosecutor of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Narsaraopet, he cannot have any grievance if the incharge arrangement made in his favour has been subsequently changed. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code. Respondent No.2, being the competent authority, is entitled to change the arrangement according to the administrative exigencies till a regular Additional Public Prosecutor is appointed. As no legal right of the petitioner has been violated by the impugned order, no relief can be granted in his favour. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:05-3-2010 MNR