S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) QUESTION :whether calling for applications by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge or the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for appointment in the post of Public Prosecutor/additional Public Prosecutor would amount to soliciting the brief within the meaning of Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") framed by the Bar Council of India and thereby would amount to professional misconduct or not is the question involved in these appeals.

( 2 ) FACTS : pursuant to or in furtherance of the Government Memo N. 34548/courts, A. 2/2000-1, dated 30-9-2000, the Collector and District Magistrate, Hydrabad district sent a letter dated 30-10-2000 to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad requesting him to send panels along with bio-data particulars for appointment to the posts of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutors. In turn, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge by letter dated 15-12-2000, requested the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to suggest panels whereafter the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate put up a notice in the notice board calling for applications from the advocates who are eligible to be so appointed.

( 3 ) UPON scrutinising the applications received, a panel was prepared whereafter including the appellant herein and others in the panel. A writ petition, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 7600 of 2001, was filed by the unofficial respondents herein praying for the following reliefs :. . . . . . to issue an appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the procedure adopted by the respondents consequent upon the Memo No. 34548/courts. A. 2/2000-1, dated 30-9-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent for the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Addl. Public Prosecutors in the Courts of respondents 3 to 7 as illegal and void and consequently direct the respondents to initiate fresh process for appointment of Public Prosecutors in the Metropolitan Sessions Courts, Hyderabad to be completed within a time-frame of three months.

( 4 ) THE said writ petition was filed on the ground that the appointment to the posts of Public Prosecutors has not been done in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" ). According to the petitioners the procedures laid down under A. P. Law Officers (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1967 had not been followed. Having regard to the social purpose under the scheme of the code as also the importance of the office which must be independent of the executive or police control, it was contended, that the advocates could not have made any application pursuant to or in furtherance of the said purported notification issued by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge as the same amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 36 of the Rules.

( 5 ) A counter-affidavit was filed by the District Collector (1st respondent in the writ petition) wherein inter alia it was stated :. . . . that the 1st respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under Section 24, Cr. P. C. before awarding the panels to the 2nd respondent-Government. I submit that the 1st respondent in consultation with the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, the 3rd respondent, prepared the panel of names of the persons fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors and Addl. Public Prosecutors and sent the same to the 2nd respondent-Government. The contention of the petitioners that except two or three advocates whose names were included in the panel, the other advocates figuring in the panels have no experience of conducting Sessions cases including trials, appeals and revision, is totally incorrect and false. The petitioners are put to strict proof of the said allegation. The other allegation that some of the advocates whose names are figures in the panels have never been in practice before the respective Courts at any point of time, is equally in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document