BAPI DEY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have challenged a Notification dated 15.06.2018 issued by the Government of Tripura under which respondents No.4 to 7 have been appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors in Judicial Magistrate Courts at Udaipur and Amarpur. The Government of Tripura had notified 5 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor at the said Magisterial Courts under the Sub-Division of Gomati District. The petitioners along with several other eligible candidates had applied in response to the same. Selection Committee had carried out the process of selecting and recommending names of eligible candidates. Upon completion of such exercise, the Selection Committee had drawn select list in which the petitioners were placed at serial Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The State Government, instead of appointing the petitioners, appointed the respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, who were placed at serial Nos.8, 12, 13 and 10 in the select list.

(2.) This litigation has a history which may be recorded in brief. In the State of Tripura, the Assistant Public Prosecutors engaged by the State Government for representing the prosecution before different Magisterial Courts is not encadred. In other words, the State of Tripura has not created a special cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutors, with prescribed scale of pay and the incumbent of which post would get the status of a Government servant. Instead, the State of Tripura engages Assistant Public Prosecutors by empanelling them, paying retainer charges and other remuneration as fixed from time to time. It appears that previously there was no pattern or regular guidelines for selecting and appointing advocates on the post of Assistant Prosecutors. A public interest petition being W.P. (C) (PIL) No.20 of 2015 was filed before the High Court urging the Court to direct the Government to lay down reasonable criteria in method of selection for preparing the panel of Assistant Public Prosecutors in terms of sub-Section (4) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner had also raised the issue of advisability of regular cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutors being created. On 28.09.2015, a Division Bench of this Court had passed a detailed order, which reads as under:

(3.) On 08.02.2016, the Division Bench passed a further order in the said public interest petition in which following observations were made: