(1.) The petitioner is a practicing advocate in the Courts at Tanuku. The post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanku, has fallen vacant. Steps were initiated in ' accordance with Section 24 of Cr.PC, for appointment of an incumbent to the post. Petitioner asserts that the names of himself, the 3rd respondent and another were recommended by the District and Sessions Judge, West-Godavari, Eluru, and the panel was forwarded to the District Collector, the 2nd respondent. According to him, the 2nd respondent inserted the name of another advocate, on his own accord, and forwarded the panel to the 1st respondent. Through order in G.O. Rt. No.45, dated 12-1-2005, the 1st respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as Additional Public Prosecutor, for a term of three years. The petitioner challenges the same.
(2.) Sri K. V. Subrahanya Narasu, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure prescribed under Section 24 Cr.PC., is very clear, and it does not permit of inclusion of any names, by the District Collector, on his own accord. He contends that though the person, whose name was included by the 2nd respondent, was not appointed, there is a serious blow to the entire consultative process, and thereby the impugned order is vitiated. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P.. AIR 1993 SC 2436, learned Counsel submits that wherever violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 24 Cr.PC, the entire proceedings may be vitiated.
(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that except making vague allegation that the 2nd respondent has included the name of an advocate in the panel, on his own accord, the petitioner did not place any material before this Court. He contends that the Respondents 1 and 2 followed the procedure prescribed under Section 24 Cr.PC, meticulously, and the impugned proceedings are not vitiated in any manner.