E.R.VINOD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an Addl. District Government Pleader/Addl. Public Prosecutor appointed for a term of three years is entitled to have renewal of the term as a matter of course, once the term is expired, without following all the procedures right from the beginning, as envisaged under Rule 8 of the Kerala Government Law officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 ('KGLO Rules' in short), read in conformity with the mandate of Section 24(4) and 24(5) of the Cr.P.C.? Whether it is within the prerogative of the Government to identify the counsel to represent the Government in the litigations, both Civil and Criminal - where the Government is a party or shall it be subject to the upper edge, if any, of the concerned District & Sessions Judge in identifying/selecting the person?. To what extent, consultation is necessary with the District & Sessions Judge for preparing the panel of candidates by the District Collector, to be forwarded to the Government for appointment?. Although renewal is ordered after consultation with the District & Sessions Judge, if it is not in full compliance with the relevant rules/provisions of the Cr.P.C., in preparing the panel, will it be a bar for the Government to have it reviewed or will the Government be bound by applying the principles of estoppel? Will the Government be justified in attempting to remove the existing Addl. Government Pleaders/Addl.Public Prosecutors (whether the term is expired or still to expire) en -bloc, as proposed in Annexure -A7 and if so, will it run contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court on the point? These are the main questions to be answered by this Court in this Original Petition.

(2.) The petitioner, a practising lawyer having more than 13 years of standing, was an aspirant to be appointed as an Addl. District Government Pleader/Addl. Public Prosecutor in the vacancy created by the Government as per Ext.P4 G.O.[G.O.(MS)No.40/2013/Law dated 01.03.2013] to cater to the requirements of the new Sub Court & Assistant Sessions Court at Kannur. Pursuant to the said G.O., the District Collector took further steps calling for a panel of qualified advocates with all the relevant particulars from the Bar Associations of Thalassery, Kannur and Payyannur. On receipt of the particulars as above, a consultation was effected with the District & Sessions Judge concerned and thereafter, a penal of 'six' candidates was forwarded to the Government as per Ext.P6 proceedings sent by the District Collector, Kannur. After considering the same, the Government appointed the petitioner as the Addl.District Government Pleader/Addl.Public Prosecutor in the newly established Sub Court and Assistant Sessions Court at Kannur as per Annexure -A1 G.O. Dated 11.04.2013, for a period of 'three years' from the date of assumption of charge or attainment of sixty years of age, whichever was earlier.

(3.) The petitioner assumed charge and while continuing as above, the term of the engagement was to expire on 10.04.2016. In the said circumstance, the petitioner submitted a request dated 29.01.2016 before the District Collector, pointing out that he was desirous of having the tenure extended, upon which Annexure -A3 communication was issued to the District Judge by the District Collector on 05.02.2016, seeking to furnish his remarks. Pursuant to this, the District Judge called for a report from the concerned court, i.e., Sub Court and Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur; in response to which, Annexure -A4 report was submitted on 29.02.2016, pointing out that there was nothing objectionable as to the course, conduct and competence of the petitioner. Thereafter, the remarks were furnished accordingly, by the District Judge, Thalassery vide letter dated 01.03.2016 and on receipt of the same, the District Collector, on the very same date, sent the recommendation to the Law Secretary. It was accordingly, that the Government issued Annexure -A6 G.O.(G.O. (MS)No.66/16/Law dated 08.04.2016) extending the term of the petitioner by a further period of three years w.e.f 12.04.2016. It is stated that the petitioner is continuing, based on the renewal as above.