JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the order of the learned single Judge dated 29-5-1991 dismissing the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE writ petition was filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the sole respondent viz. , State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the secretary, Law (Courts) Department directing the respondent to issue a fresh notification calling for a panel of advocates for appointment of Public prosecutor in the Courts of the District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad from among advocates who have put in a minimum of 7 years of practice as per section 24 (3) read with Sec. 24 (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

( 3 ) THE following are the facts of the case: The petitioner enrolled himself as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh on 9-9-1983. He has been practising in the Court at Sirpur town and Adilabad District court. The petitioner states that initially the Government came up with the proposal to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor and a Special Additional public Prosecutor in the above two courts. Under Sec. 24 of the code of Criminal procedure, a person should not have less than 10 years standing at the Bar for being appointed as Special Public Prosecutor and a person could be appointed as Public Prosecutor if he has hot less than seven years standing at the bar. It appears that the District and Sessions Judge invited bio-data from advocates who were practising for 10 years or more by 20-9-1990 as per Section 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for consideration of the candidates to be included in a panel for appointment as Special Public Prosecutor. Pursuant thereto, advocates with more than 10 years standing at the bar submitted their bio-data to the District and sessions Judge. The District Judge then submitted a panel of advocates to the Government for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and Special additional Public Prosecutor. However, the Government issued G. O. Ms.- No. 50 dated 2-3-1991 appointing one Mr. Mohan Singh not as special public Prosecutor but as a regular Additional Public Prosecutor for the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad for a period of three years.

( 4 ) THE petitioner presumed that just as a person from the panel for Addl. Special Public prosecutor was appointed as Public Prosecutor the Government mighit appoint an advocate from the similar panel (sent up for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor), as Public Prosecutor. The grievance is that the panel submitted by the District and Sessions judge was for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and it necessarily contains the names of advocates who had more than 10 years standing at the bar. The petitioner submits that if the notification had been issued for the appointment of Public Prosecutor, the petitioner could have applied as he had completed 7 years at the bar. He submits that inasmuch as the notification was for the appointment of Sepcial Public Prosecutor and the requisite standing was 10 years, the petitioner could not submit his bio- data. According to him, if the notification had been given for appointment of Public Prosecutor he would have had a chance for submitting his bio-data for consideration by the District and Sessions Judge and then by the Government. The petitioner apprehends that the appointment that is now being made is for the office of Public Prosecutor and that if an appointment is made thereto from out of the panel sent by the District and Sessions Judge for the office of Special Public Prosecutor, the petitioner would not have the opportunity of having his name considered for the appointment of the public Prosecutor. The petitioner therefore seeks the issuance of a writ to the government to notify the proposed appointment of a Public Prosecutor and call for fresh panel from the District and Sessions Judge.

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ, petition stating that the petitioner has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document