( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Public prosecutor for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge in 1996. He assumed charge on 20-8-1996 as Additional public Prosecutor of the court of Additional district and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. After expiry of the term, District Magistrate and collector, second respondent continued the petitioner as Additional Public Prosecutor. Again the first respondent vide orders in g. O. Rt. No. 882 Law (Law and J-Courts. A. 2) department dated 29-6-2000 appointed the petitioner as Additional Public Prosecutor for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge on 6-7-2000. The second term of three years as Public prosecutor expired on 5-7-2003. The government of Andhra Pradesh (Goap) issued Memo No. 3709/l172002 dated 23-5-2002 directing all the District Collectors not to continue any Law Officer who is holding the office for the second term on expiry of the term of office. In pursuance of the said memo, the second respondent issued proceedings in Roc. No. C5/9117/99 dated 24-11-2003 terminating the petitioner as Additional Public Prosecutor and also advised the Public Prosecutor of the court of district and Sessions Judge to be incharge of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the court of Additional District and Sessions judge, Chittoor. The petitioner assails the proceedings of the District Collector as illegal and without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for petitioner sri Meherchand Noori submits that as per the terms of appointment in G. O. Rt. No. 882 dated 29-6-2000, petitioner is entitled to continue till a successor is appointed and assumes office. Secondly he would urge that the appointing authority being Goap, it is incompetent for the District Collector to pass impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner. Lastly, he would contend that the impugned proceedings is in contravention of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of service) Rules, 2000 (hereafter called the rules ).

( 3 ) THE learned Assistant Government pleader for Home Ms. Vani Reddy relies on the unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 28-8-2003 in O. Abbai reddy v. The Government of A. P. (W. P. No. 642 of 2003) in support of her submission that the Government Memo dated 23-5-2002 has been upheld by the division Bench and therefore the impugned order of the District Collector does not suffer from any vice warranting any interference by this Court in this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE power of the Government to appoint a Public Prosecutor/additional public Prosecutor for every district is traceable to sub-section (3) of Section 24 of code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C. ). Section 24 does not fix the term of office of additional Public Prosecutor. Though the appointment is required to be made from out of panel of names submitted by the District magistrate and Collector in consultation with district and Sessions Judge. It is not however denied before me that be it under the statutory rules by the State Government (which are no more in force) or under administrative instructions issued from time to time and a rationale principle, the government prescribed three year term for a public Prosecutor/ Additional Public prosecutor under Section 24 (3 ). In case of delay in appointing successor, the rules/ administrative instructions empowered the district Collector to continue the Public prosecutor/ Additional Public Prosecutor to discharge the functions till a successor is appointed. Indeed, as is in this case, the government itself while issuing orders under section 24 (3), provided for such a situation where the Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to continue till a successor is appointed. These facts are not denied.

( 5 ) A reading of the impugned order passed by the second respondent would show that initially the petitioner was appointed in August 1996 and he assumed charge on 20-8-1996. Even aft