CHANDRAHAS KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: Firstly, a writ/direction not to appoint any one on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor on contract basis; Secondly; quash the appointment order to the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer issued by the Collector on contract basis; and Thirdly; the respondents may be directed to appoint the Assistant Public Prosecutors as per Annexure - P/2 who have been selected by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission under CGADPPO Exam-06 with all the consequential benefits.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that the second respondent - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission made an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (for short "the ADPPO") on 27.09.2006 (Annexure - P/1). The post of ADPPO is gazetted class-II. After due selection the results of the examination were declared on 31.08.2007 and the petitioners were placed at S. No. 45 and 59, respectively in the merit list. The petitioners were not appointed on the ground that some of posts were filled up by appointment of ADPPOs on contract basis by the Collector. It is alleged that contrary to the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr. PC") the appointments were made by the Collector. The power of appointment is with the State Government and, as such, the Collector is not competent to appoint any person as ADPPO on contract basis. Shri Kotecha & Shri Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the appointment of ADPPO is governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C. read with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Cr.P.C. provides that "the State Government shall appoint in every district one or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecutions in the Courts of Megistrates". Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Cr.P.C. provides that "where no Assistant Public Prosuector is available for the purposes of any particular case, the District Megistrate may appoint any other person to be the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case".

(3.) A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 25 of the Cr. PC, it is clear that the State Government alone is competent to appoint the Assistant Public Prosecutors (for short "the APP") or ADPPOs, however, in a situation wherein no APP is available for the purpose of any particular case the District Magistrate may appoint any other person to be the APP in charge of that case alone. The District Magistrate cannot appoint the ADPPOs, in general, on contract basis. Thus, at this stage, when the contract appointees have already completed the term of appointment and thereafter for want of regular appointees, their terms has been extended for a period of six months, it is not necessary to adjudicated upon the legality of appointment of ADPPOs by the Collector on contract basis. The contract appointees may continue till regular appointment is made through proper selection by the second respondent - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission or the term of extension is over, whichever is earlier. With the aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, all the pending applications also stand disposed of.