SURESH SHAMRAO KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 26th March 2013, parties were put to notice that these two Writ Petitions would be taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule. By consent, and on the Respondents waiving service, Rule made returnable forthwith and petitions taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The issue before us in both petitions, though seemingly narrow, is one of significance to administration of law and justice in the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner, Suresh Shamrao Kamble ("Kamble") questions not only the appointment as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for Kolhapur District of the 7th Respondent in Writ Petition 11130 of 2011, one Dilip Jinadattarao Mangsule ("Mangsule"), but also the manner in which that appointments was made, i.e., the decision-making process itself.

(3.) We must state straightaway that as far as the Petitioner is concerned, this issue is now academic since he is now age-barred and cannot hold the post in question. We believe, however, that the petitions raise important issues of governance in public office and hence require a detailed examination.