FRANCIS JUDE NETTO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.C. No. 26852 of 2006 was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice issued by the District Collector inviting applications from qualified advocates for appointment as District Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors and Additional Government Pleaders and Additional Public Prosecutors in the Kollam district and for a declaration that the petitioner's service as Additional District Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, Fast Track Court (Adhoc III) Kollam is not liable to be terminated till the expiry of three years period mentioned in his appointment order. Learned single judge found no illegality in the steps taken to terminate his service and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same W.A. No. 1633 of 2007 was preferred. Against the interim order passed by the learned single judge W.A. No. 1358 of 2007 was preferred.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor at Fast Track Court (Adhoc III), Kollam as per order dated 23-06-2005. His service was terminated as per order G.O. (Ms) No. 113/07/Law dated 07-06-07 and the District Collector took steps to appoint an Additional Government Pleader for that court and various other courts. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure followed by the District Collector is illegal and against the dictum laid down by the apex court in Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P., 1993 CrLJ 3140 as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Omanakuttan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2003 1 KerLT 226 . Learned Counsel submitted that consultation with the District Judge is not an empty formality. District Judge, it was submitted, would be in a better position to assess the legal and professional calibre of the person recommended for appointment and there is no reason to discard his opinion in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutors.

(3.) Learned Advocate General submitted that the District Collector has strictly followed the provisions of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 as amended by Government Notification G.O. (Ms) No. 70/2002/Law dated 06-03-2002. Learned Advocate General submitted that as per rules, if the District Judge has got any disapproval of a name suggested he must specifically state so and the grounds on which he expresses his disapproval. Learned Advocate General referred to the report of the District Judge dated 25-10-2006 and submitted that he has not specifically disapproved on specific grounds any of the recommendation made by the District Collector and consequently District Collector was justified in appointing persoas included in the list prepred by him.