K C THANKAPPAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an advocate of Quilon, seeks to quash the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor of that District, and has prayed for incidental and consequential reliefs. The appointment of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors in the Districts of this State, according to the petitioner, has to be made in conformity with certain rules framed for the purpose, from among persons to be nominated by the Collector in consultation with the District Judge of the District concerned. It is the petitioner's case that after such consultation, the District Collector had nominated only two persons, of whom the petitioner was the first ; that the 3rd respondent, who had not been nominated, sent a letter of willingness to be considered for the post to the Minister of Law, which was forwarded to the Collector, who still stood by his nomination ; whereupon, he was asked to submit a panel of five names ; which he did, including that of the 3rd respondent from which the impugned appointment was made. It is the petitioner's case that according to the Rules framed for transaction of Government business, the appointment of Government Pleader has to be made by the Council of Ministers and that the original nomination of the Collector was not placed before, or considered by, the Council of Ministers ; and that the appointment has been made mala fide at the instance of the Minister for Law.

(2.) THE allegations in the petition have been denied in a counter-affidavit by the Law Secretary on behalf of the 1st respondent, and a separate counter-affidavit by the 2nd respondent, and the Minister for Law.

(3.) FOR the purpose of this writ petition alone, it was conceded by Sri T. C. N. Menon, the Government Pleader appearing in this case, that it may be assumed that office of the Government Pleader is a public office. The petitioner's counsel contended that the appointment to the same is governed by certain statutory rules. Sri T. C. N. Menon was not prepared to agree that there were any statutory rules ; but took the position that, assuming there was, they have been substantially complied with, and there is no ground for interference.