Per LODHA R.M., J.: - Mr. A.S. Shirsat is a practising Advocate. He practices in the Jalgaon courts. By means of this Public Interest Litigation, he has raised the grievance concerning the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 as Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor / Assistant Government Pleader / Additional Public Prosecutor. According to him, the appointment of these persons is arbitrary and merit has been the casualty in appointing them.

2. At the outset, Mr. Ravi Kadam, the Advocate General submitted that insofar as appointment of respondent Nos. 4 to 13 as Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor / Assistant Government Pleader / Additional Public Prosecutor is concerned, their tenure has come to an end and the fresh process for the appointment of Law Officers in the concerned areas has started as per the provisions of Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service & Remuneration) Rules, 1984 (for short "Law Officers Appointment Rules"). He also submitted that presently respondent Nos. 4 to 13 have been asked to continue as Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor / Assistant Government Pleader / Additional Public Prosecutor as a stop-gap arrangement until the fresh appointments are made.

3. As regards the appointment of respondent Nos. 4 to 13 we are satisfied that the grievance raised by the petitioner does not I need to be examined by us any further.

4. The controversy centres around the e appointment of respondent No. 3 (Shri Ujjawal Nikam) as Government Pleader Public Prosecutor, Jalgaon, and in some cases as Special Public Prosecutor.

5. Insofar as the appointment of Shri Ujjawal Nikam as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Jalgaon is concerned, we find from the available material that by the order dated 30th July, 1999 he was appointed as District Government Pleader in the District of Jalgaon. By subsequent Notification dated 8th August, 2001, his appointment as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Jalgaon was continued until further orders. On 31st August, 2001, the District Magistrate, Jalgaon forwarded the list of 39 applicants to the District & Sessions Judge, Jalgaon for the consideration of the appointment of any of these candidates as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. The District & Sessions Judge, Jalgaon forwarded his comments to the District Magistrate, Jalgaon on l 15th September, 2001. After the process of consultation was over, on 27th March, 2002 Shri Ujjawal Nikam was appointed as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor Jalgaon vide Notification dated 27th March, 2002. The material indicates that pursuant to the advertisement published on 4th July, 2001 for the appointment of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, 67 applications were received from the Advocates. Out of67 applications, 47 applications were for the post of District Government Pleader and 20 applications were for the post of Public Prosecutor. Upon scrutiny of 67 applications, 39 applicants were found to be suitable by the District Magistrate and the said list was forwarded to the District & Sessions Judge, Jalgaon for his comments on 31st August, 2001 as indicated above. The District & Sessions Judge found that most of the 39 applicants had never conducted civil or criminal matters before him.

He submitted his comments about 7 candidates only. Out of these 7 candidates, the District & Sessions Judge commented that 5 candidates do not deserve to be considered. Two candidates remained, one the respondent No.3 and the other Shri M.D. Mujumdar. The District & Sessions Judge opined ~hat name of M.D. Mujumdar be considered but with regard to Shri Ujjawal Nikam, he opined that his name ought to be considered.

6. It would be, thus, seen that the appointment of respondent No. 3 as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Jalgaon cannot be said to suffer from any flaw or infirmity.

7. Mr. M. P.Vashi, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document