KANUKUNTLA GOPIKA RANI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner, who claims to be a practicing Advocate that respondent No.5 along with other Advocates attacked the-then learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, in the Court Hall while conducting Court proceedings and a complaint dtd. 28/6/2016 was lodged against the respondent No.5 and others by the-then learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.204 of 2016 on the file of Subedari Police Station, Warangal, for the offences under Ss. 143, 452, 342, 332, 506, 186 r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short "PDPP Act"). It is further case of the petitioner that the erstwhile Common High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, has initiated suo motu contempt case vide C.C.No.52 of 2016 against the respondent No.5 and the Bar Council of India also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.5. However, the respondent No.4 without considering the involvement of respondent No.5 in the said Crime, recommended his name for appointment as Public Prosecutor and basing on the said recommendation, the respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.994 Home (Courts.A1) Department dtd. 28/6/2021 has appointed the respondent No.5 as Special Public Prosecutor (tenure) for Fast Track Criminal Court in the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases at Warangal. Therefore, the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned G.O dtd. 28/6/2021.

(3.) The Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit and stated that the appointment of Law Officers in the State of Telangana is governed by the Telangana Law Officers (Appointment and conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, issued in G.O.Ms.No.187, Law (L) Department, dtd.: 6/12/2000. As per instruction 5(1) of the said instructions, "appointment of Law officers in all the courts and Tribunals subordinate to the High Court shall be made on the basis of the recommendations of the District Collector concerned who shall ascertain the views of the concerned District and Sessions Judge before making the recommendations". As per Note-1 under instruction 5(2), "While recommending panels, the District Judge may obtain the Bio-data from such of the Advocates whom he considers to be fit for appointment and send a panel of eligible candidates on that basis without calling for Bio-data from all the advocates having a particular standing. As per Note-1 under instruction 5(2), "the collectors shall, while making recommendation to the Government, furnish the following particulars, in respect of Advocates included in the panel, which shall pertain to a period of three years immediately preceding the year in which the recommendation is made and which shall be in a full and complete form and adequate for the purpose of the selection i.e, Qualification, Age, Social Status, Standing at Bar as an Advocate, Nature of Practice, the number of Sessions cases conducted (in case of posts of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor) the number of suits, appeals and the like conducted (in case of posts of Governments Pleaders and A.G.P's) the amount of Income Tax, if any paid, general antecedents, efficiency, reliability, an appraisal by the Sessions Judge or the District Judge about the nature and quality of advocacy, general repute and personality". It is further stated that the respondent No.4 vide letter No.REV/C1/LAO/0016/2020-COLL WGLU dtd.:14/12/2020, has submitted that the learned I Additional District Judge, FAC Principal District Judge, Warangal vide letter dtd. 29/10/2020 has furnished the following panel of (5) Advocates for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor to the Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act cases at Warangal along with their Bio-datas: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_110_LAWS(TLNG)3_2024_1.jpg</IMG> It is further stated that the respondent No.4 has got verified the character and antecedents of the above panel of advocates and as per the report submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Warangal, the respondent No.5 (who was placed at Sl.No.2) was acquitted in 8 criminal cases and one case is pending i.e, Cr.No.204/2016 & CC/0400520/2016. The respondent No.5 was also involved in Cr.No.451/2011 under Sec. 151 Cr.P.C. In respect of Sri D.Ramulu, Advocate (who was placed at Sl.No.4), it is stated that he was involved in a Criminal Case in Cr.No.389/2005 dtd. 1/10/2005 for the offences under Sec. 384 read with 511 IPC Sec. 25(1B) of Indian Arms Act, and the said case ended in acquittal on 8/7/2010. It is further stated that basing on the panel of names received from the respondent No.4 in consultation with the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Warangal, Government after obtaining orders from the competent authority as per Rules, selected one among the panel of five (5) advocates and issued orders appointing respondent No.5 as Special Public Prosecutor (Tenure) for Fast Track Special Court in the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, cases at Warangal. It is further stated that the appointment of respondent No.5 is purely on temporary basis i.e, for a period of three years and it is for the discretion of the Government to appoint one among the panel of advocates furnished by the District Collector. It is also stated that the consideration of candidature of an advocate for appointment to the tenure post of Additional Public Prosecutor of any Court cannot be deprived of only on the basis of criminal case pending against him/her until it is proved otherwise. Thus the respondent No.1 supported the appointment of respondent No.5 as Special Public Prosecutor and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.