Naresh H. Patil, J.

1) Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the matter was heard finally.

2) The petitioner, an Advocate practicing at District Court, Osmanabad, prayed for issuance of writ, order or direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 9th June 2009 issued by the Department of Law and Judiciary, State of Maharashtra appointing respondent No.2 – Mr. Shashikant Panditrao Nimbalkar as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for Osmanabad District and for setting aside the order passed by the Law and Judiciary Department dated 22nd May 2009 staying the effect and operation of the order appointing the petitioner as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor of District Court Osmanabad. The petitioner further prayed for writ of mandamus for implementation of the notification dated 22nd May 2009 wherein the petitioner was appointed as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. The petitioner amended the petition during the course of hearing and added consequential prayer clauses and further prayed for setting aside the order dated 6-7-2009 by which the State Government had cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor with effect from 22nd May 2009.

3) In substance, the petitioner’s contention is that the respondent No.2 Mr. Nimbalkar was appointed as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor initially by a notification dated 28-10-1992 and since last 17 years respondent No.2 is continued as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. It is alleged by the petitioner that during the course of said tenure as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor there were several complaints made against the functioning of the respondent No.2.

4) On 7th January 2009 the Law and Judiciary Department directed the Collector Osmanabad to issue a notification for preparing a panel for appointment to the post of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. It is contended that on 7-1-2009 a notification was issued by the Collector Osmanabad inviting applications from eligible advocates. The petitioner submitted his application to the Collector on 22nd January 2009. The respondent No.2 had also applied for the said post. The Collector had forwarded a panel of four Advocates to the Law and Judiciary Department which was received by the said department on 9th March 2009. Amongst the four names the Collector had recommended the petitioner and respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 was at Sr.No.1 in the list of the Collector. The said list of four names was forwarded by the Collector after seeking opinion of the District and Sessions Judge Osmanabad which was forwarded to the Collector on 11th February 2009. The District and Sessions Judge recommended the name of respondent No.2 Mr. Nimbalkar and endorsed that respondent No.2 has deep knowledge of law and as an Advocate in Court work he is prompt, honest and hard worker. It was further observed by the District Judge that respondent No.2 has good relations with the Bar Association; the Judges and the staff of the Court. He defends the State Government honestly. Apart from this endorsement the District Judge recommended names of six more Advocates. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Section 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Rule 13 of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules 1984 (for short “the Rules of 1984”), the petitioner was appointed as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for a period of three years. The order of appointment was passed by order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. A notification was sent for publication in the Government Gazette which was even published in the Government Gazette on 9th July 2009. The petitioner’s contention is that on the same day the Law and Judiciary Dep