K NAGAPPA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks awrit of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring G. O. Rt. No. 1842, Law (LA and J Courts A2) Department, dated 28-10-2005, issued by respondent No. 1 -Government, as illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of Section 24 cr. P. C. and the Instructions issued by respondent No. 1-Government in G. O. Ms. No. 187, dated 6-12-2000, and to consequently direct respondent No. 1-Government to consider the name of one of the Advocates for appointment to the post of Additional public Prosecutor in the Court of II Additional sessions Judge, Hindupur, from the panel sent by respondent No. 3-Additional District judge, and pass such other order or orders, as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE petitioner is an Advocate practising in the Courts at Hindupur, and claims to have a standing of about 12 years. Pursuant to expiry of the term of Additional Public prosecutor in the Court of the II Additional district Judge, Hindupur, the petitioner states that respondent No. 2-District Magistrate requested respondent No. 3-Additional District judge, to send a panel of six Advocates for appointment to the said post. Accordingly, respondent No. 3-Additional District Judge, sent the panel of Advocates to respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, in which the petitioner's name was shown at SI. No. 4, while so, the petitioner states that respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, included the names of two Advocates in the said panel, namely that of respondent No. 4 and one other advocate on 19-7-2005, and requested respondent No. 1-Government to appoint an advocate from among the panel of eight advocates to the post of Additional Public prosecutor. Pursuant thereto, respondent no. 1-Government, issued orders in G. O. Rt. No. 1842, Law (LA and J Courts A2) Department, dated 28-10-2005, appointed respondent No. 4 as Additional Public Prosecutor for a period of three years. Impugning the said G. O. issued by respondent No. 1-Government, appointing respondent No. 4 as Additional public Prosecutor, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of respondent No. 4 was not recommended and included in the panel of names sent by respondent No. 3-District Judge to respondent No. 2-District magistrate, for appointment to the post of additional Public Prosecutor. However, respondent No. 2-District Collector upon receiving the panel of names recommended by respondent No. 3-District Judge, respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, without consulting respondent No. 3-District Judge, included the names of respondent No. 4 and another in the said panel, and sent the said panel of names to the respondent No. 1-Government for appointment. Respondent no. 1-Government, considering the said panel, issued orders in G. O. Rt. No. 1842, law (LA and J Courts A2) Department, dated 28-10-2005, appointing respondent No. 4 as additional Public Prosecutor. He submits since the name of respondent No. 4 was included by respondent No. 2-District magistrate, in the panel of names recommended by respondent No. 3-District judge, without consulting him, as is required under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, and the Instructions issued by respondent No. 1 -Government in G. O. Ms. No. 187, dated 6-12-2000, respondent No. 4 :ould not have been appointed as Additional public Prosecutor, and as such, the orders ssued by respondent No. 1-Government appointing respondent No. 4 as Additional public Prosecutor, is liable to be set aside.