K SADANANSAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, has somehow fallen to rough weather. Three and half years have elapsed, since the steps, in accordance with Section 24 of Cr.P.C. were initiated for the appointment, but it could not fructify.

(2.) The office fell vacant with the expiry of the term of the previous incumbent. In exercise of power under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C., and instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No. 187, dated 6-12-2000, the District Collector, the 2nd respondent herein, prepared a panel of seven names, and forwarded the same to the 1st respondent, on 18-9-2003. The 1st respondent opined that the panel must consist of 5 names only, and accordingly returned it with the directions to the 2nd respondent to send fresh panel. In compliance, the 2nd respondent sent a panel of five names, on 5-8-2004. One Ch. Ravinder Rao, Advocate, whose name figured in the first panel, but was missing in the second panel; filed W.P. No. 19246 of 2004. Even while that writ petition was pending, the 1st respondent took the view that the panel must have contained a name of S.C. candidate. On this basis, he required the 2nd respondent to forward another panel. A third panel came to be prepared, on 11-10-2004. The 1st respondent found a new ground to return this panel also. The Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, was redesignated as Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. In the mean while, W.P.No. 19246 of 2004 came to be allowed, and the 1st respondent was directed to consider the first panel, dated 18-9-2003. Writ Appeal No. 1156 of 2005 was filed by one of the aggrieved candidates. Through its judgment dated 4-10-2005, the Division Bench took the view that, having regard to the developments, that have taken place up to that date, respondents 2 and 3 must prepare a fresh panel within one month. Writ Petition and Writ Appeal were concerned with the appointments of Public Prosecutors, to some other Courts also, in the same district.

(3.) In compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench, the 2nd respondent forwarded a fresh pane! dated 11-11-2005. Consistent with its approach to the matter, the 1st respondent insisted that a different panel be forwarded, and accordingly, a new set of names, being the fifth in the series; was forwarded on 9-6-2006. This gave rise to filing of W.P.No.8973 of 2006, by one Sri Ravinder. In that writ petition, the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, taking the stand, that they would act upon the panel dated 11-11 -2005 (the 4th panel) and not the 5th panel. However, through letter, dated 30-12-2006, the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to send a fresh panel, urgently. The 2nd respondent, in turn, requested the 3rd respondent, the District and Sessions Judge, to prepare a fresh panel. It is in this background, that a 6th panel dated 11 -1-2007 came to be prepared and forwarded to the 1st respondent. The petitioner challenges the same. He contends that in the whole episode, public interest was disregarded and the procedure under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C., was subordinated to personal whims and fancies.