The court ruled that the appointment of the Director of Prosecution is not limited to the prosecution cadre, and the amendments to the rules do not violate the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - Heard Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri B. Srinarayana learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 3, Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner, who is presently working as the Additional Director of Prosecutions, Andhra Pradesh, being aggrieved by the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Director of Prosecution, Andhra Pradesh, has filed the present writ petition challenging the said appointment and also sought other reliefs. The prayer in the writ petition after it's amendment, allowed by the order of this Court, dated 03.10.2023, in I.A.No.2 of 2023 reads as follows:

i) declare the concurrence accorded by the 2nd respondent and the appointment of the 4th respondent as Director of Prosecutions, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Rt.No.552, Home (Courts-A) Department, Dated 22.05.2023, as Arbitrary, Malafide and illegal as it is

a) contrary to Sections 2(u), 24(6), 24(9), 25-A and 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Rule 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prosecution Service Rules, 1992 ('the 1992 Rules' for brevity), and / or;

b) contrary to Section 78 of A.P. State Reorganization Act of 2014 and / or;

c) contrary to Section 4(1) of the A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Service & Rationalisation of Staff Pattern & Pay Structure) Act, 1994;

d) contrary and/or violative of the orders dated 05-08-2021 the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No.15377 of 2021 and

ii) set aside G.O.Ms.No.56 Home (Court-A) Department dated 15.06.2021

iii) set aside the G.O.Rt.No.552 Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 22.05.2023

iv) direct the Respondents to appoint me as the Director of Prosecutions by promotion and

v) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. The factual matrix of the case, according to the petitioner is as follows:

A. The petitioner herein, who was a practicing advocate, was selected and appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor on 06.11.1998. He was promoted from time to time, in the hierarchy of posts, created under the Andhra Pradesh Prosecution Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 1992 Rules). He was promoted to the post of Additional Director, on 15.02.2019. He was also given Full Additional Charge as Director of Prosecutions on 21.02.2019.

B. The 1st respondent, in 2019, initiated the process for appointment of the Director of Prosecutions and sought the views of the Director of Prosecutions. At that stage, the 4th respondent gave a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, in the month of September, 2019, seeking his appointment as Director of Prosecutions and the said request was forwarded to the 1st respondent. Thereupon, the 1st respondent sought the views of the Director of Prosecutions and the petitioner, who was then working as Director of Prosecutions (FAC), had forwarded his remarks, under letter dated 11.10.2019, including the contention that only a member of the cadre of Prosecuting officers established under the 1992 Rules, can be appointed as Director of Prosecutions.

C. After receipt of the said remarks, the 1st respondent forwarded the names of two advocates, who were not part of the cadre, to the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 05.11.2019 and sought concurrence of the 2nd respondent under Section 25-A of Cr.P.C. While this request was under consideration, by the 2nd respondent, a further letter dated 27.11.2019 was sent by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent to include the name of the 4th respondent in the above panel. The 2nd respondent, in response to these requests, by a letter, dated 07.01.2020, sought clarification from the 1st respondent on the following issues:

i) The setup of Directorate of Prosecutions including the posts of Director of P