The petitioner, a practicing advocate in Punganur town of Chittoor District, has filed this Writ Petition questioning the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in appointing the sixth respondent, vide G.O.Rt. No.330, Law (LA & J-Home-Courts. A1) Department dated 15.02.2012, as an Additional Public Prosecutor, without verifying his antecedents and social status, as arbitrary and illegal. He seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the said G.O; and to direct respondent Nos.3 to 5 to take appropriate action against the sixth respondent in suppressing his antecedents while submitting his application for the said post. The Writ Petition was filed on 05.03.2012, and came up for admission on 09.03.2012. Notice before admission was ordered on 26.04.2012, and the petitioner was permitted to take out notice by personal service on the sixth respondent.

Facts, in brief, are that the District Collector, Chittoor, vide letter dated 07.09.2011, requested the District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor to forward a panel of names for appointment as an Additional Public Prosecutor. The District Judge, vide proceedings dated 15.09.2011, requested the Assistant Sessions Judge, Punganur to submit a panel of five Advocates for appointment to the said post. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Punganur issued circular dated 20.09.2011 requesting the President and members of the Bar Association, Punganur to furnish their bio-data and certificates. In his bio-data submitted on 22.09.2011, the sixth respondent did not state that any criminal complaint/case was pending against him. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Punganur, vide letter dated 23.09.2011, forwarded a panel of five names to the District Judge, Chittoor who, vide letter dated 14.10.2011, forwarded the said panel, along with the bio-data of the advocate-panelists, to the District Collector. The Learned District Judge, in his proceedings dated 14.10.2011, records that considering the qualification, age, social status, standing at the Bar as an Advocate, nature of practice, the number of sessions cases conducted, efficiency, reliability, quality of advocacy, general reputation and personality, he had furnished a panel of five names of Advocates with their respective bio-data in the order of merit; and no woman and scheduled tribe candidates were available. The sixth respondent’s name is shown at serial No.5 therein. Along with the said letter the signed bio-data, of each of the five panelists, was enclosed. The District Collector, vide letter dated 20.10.2011, called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor who, vide proceedings dated 10.11.2011, submitted his report to the District Collector after verifying the antecedents of the advocates in the panel recommended by the District and Sessions Judge. The letter of the Superintendent ofPolice, Chittoor, to the District Collector, dated 10.11.2011 records, among others, regarding the sixth respondent that:-

“he is having good reputation in the public and with other advocates as well as court staff and police officials. He was appointed as Standing Counsel for Punganur Municipality from 30.11.2005 to 2008. He has not come to any adverse notice, as seen from the records of concerned police station and District Special Branch Office, Chittoor”.

The District Collector, vide proceedings dated 25.11.2011, sent his proposals to the government requesting that any one of the advocates in the panel be appointed as the Additional Public Prosecutor. While forwarding the names of the five Advocates, including the sixth respondent, the District Collector extracted the contents of the antecedent reports, of all the five Advocates including the sixth respondent, in the said letter dated 25.11.2011. The report of the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor; the antecedent verification report of the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor; and the bio-data of each of the advocates in the panel were also forwarded along with the said letter. Thereafter the fir