The decision of the selection committee should not be interfered with unless malafide is established, and once the minimum eligibility condition is fulfilled, the remaining aspect relating to suitability cannot be interfered with unless there is any allegation of malafide.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has called in question the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2021 whereby petition challenging the appointment of the respondent No.4 as Special Public Prosecutor for Special Court in conducting the case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (for short POCSO Act) came to be dismissed.

2. The parties are referred to by their ranks before the learned Single Judge for the purpose of convenience.

3. The Government vide notification at Annexure - F dated 11.12.2020 invited applications for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor on contract basis for 3 years or until further orders on certain fixed terms of emoluments. The petitioner was stated to be working as a prosecutor till 13.12.2021 when the respondent no.4 took charge.

4. It comes out from the facts that the petitioner having been appointed as a prosecutor on 11.12.2014 had continued till the year 2021. The respondent No.4 having been selected pursuant to the procedure followed under the notification at Annexure -F has subsequently taken charge on 13.12.2021 and has been functioning since then.

5. The petitioners have challenged the appointment of the respondent No.4 on various grounds including that the petitioner was more qualified, that the application had a separate column namely column No.15 which provides for mentioning of cases handled by the applicant in specific handling of Sessions Cases and cases under the POCSO Act. It is submitted that the petitioner by virtue of having handled assignment from 11.12.2014 till 2021 was more competent and that required care and caution has not been exercised in the selection process by virtue of which respondent No.4 who has no proper experience has been selected. It is further contended that the notification at Annexure F having prescribed procedure and the short listing of the names the Prl. District Judge in required to make certain enquiries. Selection committee proceedings dated 05.06.2021 produced by the respondent/ State prescribes that after the committee has selected suitable candidates the Prl. District Judge is required to furnish opinion regarding prospective candidates expertise, character and opinion after which movement order is to be given. It is submitted that such procedure has not been followed in the present case.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the present appointment though being under Section 32 of POCSO Act, the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Services) Rules 1977 which are general rules must be treated to be a part and parcel of the notification at Annexure - F and the procedure laid out in the afore said rules ought to be adhered to.

7. It is submitted that the selection committee proceedings did not indicate application of mind and as to on what basis selection of the respondent no.4 has been made from amongst the other candidates. Attention is also drawn to the opinion of the District Judge and it is pointed out that the learned District Judge has observed that the respondent No.4 has handled only matrimonial matters and matters before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Legal Services Authority Cases of Ballary. It is further pointed out that the said Prl. District Judge has no other information regarding the character of the applicant and is unable to furnish any other information. It is also contended that the observations made in various judgments which emphasize on the importance of appointing Special Public Prosecutors in POCSO matters ought to be adhered to. The attention is also drawn to the judgment in Criminal Petition No.2951/2020 and connected matters and in particular observations at para No.52 and 57.

8. It is also contended relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.P.Singhal V/s. Union of India and Another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 331 that the doctrine of pleasure cannot be invoked and that appointment cannot be arbitrary.

9. The learned counsel