PRATAP NARAYAN GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the three writ applications common question is involved and, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in WPS No. 3461 of 2007 namely Pratap Narayan Gope has prayed for quashing of the notification contained in memo No. 2389 dated 22-6-2007 whereby the respondent No. 6 Tribhuwan Nath upadhyay was asked to function as Public prosecutor in the Civil Court, Jamshedpur, which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of Cr. P. C. as well as the law laid down by Patna High Court in the case of "jaidhari roy and others v. State of Bihar through the chief Secretary and others, reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 558 : (1996 Cri LJ 1498)" wherein it has been held that no Assistant Public prosecutor can be appointed on the post of public Prosecutor or Additional Public prosecutor unless he resigns from his original post on which he was appointed by the State government. According to the petitioner his name was recommended by the Deputy commissioner to the State Government for his continuance on the post of Public Prosecutor, which had expired in 2005 since it was a tenure post for three years only but no decision has yet been taken by the State Government.

(3.) THE petitioner Anil Kumar Mahto in wps No. 3983 of 2007 has also challenged the same very notification dated 22-6-2007 whereby respondent No. 6 Ram Bilas Prasad Sah has been asked to function as Public prosecutor in Civil Court, Jamtara.