BINEESH K.C., ADVOCATE, KANNAMMURY HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question raised in these writ petitions is with regard to the procedure to be followed in the matter of appointment; extension of term and termination of appointment of District Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors in various District and Sessions Courts as well as Additional Government Pleaders and Additional Public Prosecutors in Additional District Courts and Sub Courts and Tribunals in the State.

(2.) W.P.(C). No. 34210 of 2015 is filed by three persons who claim to be practicing advocates eligible for appointment as District Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors. They seek an order quashing Exhibits P2 to P5 and also all appointments of Public Prosecutors/District Government Pleaders and Additional Public Prosecutors/Additional Government Pleaders made after 26.04.2012, i.e., the date of Exhibit P1, without effective consultation with the Sessions Judge, as contemplated in Sec. 24 Cr.P.C and as interpreted by judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. There is a further relief sought to declare that the respective Sessions Judges have the right to independently assess the eligibility of advocates for inclusion in the panel for appointment as Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders, dehors the list sent to him by the District Magistrate, and further to add eligible advocates of his choice to such panel or to remove undesirable persons from the panel. W.P.(C).No.22826 of 2016 is filed by three persons, who claim to be practicing advocates, eligible for appointment as District Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors seeking directions to the State to immediately appoint a Selection/Search Committee to assess the merit and ability of legal practitioners for appointment as District Government Pleaders/Additional Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors and also to consider the creation of permanent cadre of Law Officers in the district centres. W.P.(C).No.24026 of 2016 is filed by a person claiming to be a practicing lawyer; as a Public Interest Litigation; seeking directions to the Government to follow the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in State of Punjab Another Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chapal and Another [AIR 2016 SC 1629] while making selection and appointment of Law Officers in the High Court and District and Sessions Courts. W.P. (C). No. 23934 of 2016 is filed by a person claiming to be a practicing lawyer of Thodupuzha, pleading that he is eligible for appointment as Additional District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. He challenges Exhibit P1 in that writ petition, which is a notice dated 04.01.2016. He impeaches that notice on the ground that the District and Sessions Judge is incompetent to call for applications from Advocates for empanellment.

(3.) W.P.(C). Nos. 22826 of 2016, 24662 of 2016, 23061 of 2016 and 24687 of 2016 are filed by persons, who are functioning as District Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors, Additional District Government Pleaders/ Additional Public Prosecutors in various centres, challenging the notices issued by the respective District Collectors calling for applications for empanellment of Advocates for the purpose of appointment as Government Law Officers. They contend that they had either been appointed for a specified term or their appointments had been subsequently renewed for fixed terms. The procedure now initiated for fresh appointment would invariably result in the premature termination of their term of appointments, it is contended.