B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as the same question arises for consideration in all these writ petitions.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to the appointment of Law Officers in Nizamabad District. The mode, method and procedure adopted by the learned District and Sessions Judge is assailed in this batch of writ petitions. All the petitioners herein are practising Advocates in various Courts in Nizamabad District. According to them, they are vitally interested in upholding the dignity of the members of the Bar. All the petitioners are unanimous in asserting that no member of the Bar should solicit work from any client including the Government. According to them no Advocate should make any application to whatsoever authority seeking appointment as the Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assistant Government Pleader etc. , as the case may be. Such applications, according to them, would amount to soliciting the work from the Government. Yet they have chosen to file these writ petitions for setting aside the panel prepared by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad and consequential order passed by the Government appointing the law Officer.

( 3 ) THE Collector and District Magistrate, Nizamabad vide his letter dated 17-12-1998 requested the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge to send a fresh panel of eligible Advocates for being appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad and Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad and also Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan. The learned District Judge through letter dated 23-12-1998 requested the President, Bar Association, Nizamabad to circulate the information received by him from the Collector regarding the appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned District Judge in the said letter indicated to the President of the Bar Association that interested Bar members may submit their applications along with bio-data for appointment as Additional Public Prosecutors for the Courts of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad and Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad so as to enable him to submit panel to the Collector and District Magistrate, Nizamabad. The District Collector through another letter dated 1-1-1999 requested the learned District Judge to send a fresh panel of eligible Advocates for being appointed as the Asst. Government Pleaders in Munsif Magistrate Courts, Bichukonda andy Nizamabad and also Government Pleader, Nizamabad. The District and Sessions Judge through his letter dated 5-1-1999 made similar request to the President, Bar Association, Nizamabad requesting him to circulate information received by him from the District Collector so as to enable the interested Advocates to submit their application along with bio-data for consideration and preparation of panel of Advocates for appointment of the said Law Officers.

( 4 ) IT is also evident from the record that the learned District Judge through letter dated 23-12-1998 required the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan by adopting the same procedure as the one adopted by him to get the required information about the eligibility, qualification, practice and standing at the Bar of the Advocates who are interested for being appointed as the Law Officers.

( 5 ) ALL the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners strenuously contend that the procedure adopted by the learned District Judge as illegal and violative of Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. It is also contended that the learned District Judge sent the names of more than three Advocates by including their names in the panel. The said action is contrary to the Executive instructions issued by the Government in the submission. Learned Counsel placed reliance upon the Judgment reported in V. Kishore

Click Here to Read the rest of this document