PATHURI VENKATESWARLU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Public Prosecutor for the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, through G.O. Rt. No.917 Law (L.A.& J Courts-A-3) Department, dated 22-6-2001. Even after expiry of the term, he is continuing in the office, in view of the clause contained in the order of appointment. Through his proceedings dated 8-10-2004, the District Collector, the second respondent, terminated the service of the petitioner under Rule 9 of the A.P. Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000 (for short 'Instructions'). The petitioner challenges the same. According to him, the appointing authority for the post of the Public Prosecutor, is the first respondent and the second respondent has no jurisdiction to terminate the said appointment.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.

(3.) Initially, the petitioner was appointed as the Public Prosecutor for the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Guntur for a period of three years, by the first respondent, through the orders in G.O. Ms. No.16 dated 16-1-1997. Thereafter, he was appointed for another term of three years through G,O. Rt. No,917 dated 22-6-2001. If the appointment was for three years and the G.O. is silent as to the consequences that are to follow after expiry of the said period, the petitioner cannot claim any right to remain in the office, after expiry of three years.