Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. – In these two writ applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners, in effect, have sought for quashing of notice, dated 08.03.2013, issued from the office of the Advocate General, Patna, Bihar, inviting willingness from the advocates, who are desirous of inclusion of their names in the panel for selection and appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor for the High Court. By the notice, those Additional Public Prosecutors, who are working at present, have also been requested to submit their willingness for inclusion of their names in the panel for selection.

2. With the help of this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to make provisions for 16% reservation for Scheduled Castes and 1% for Scheduled Tribes in the process of said appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor inasmuch as posts of Additional Public Prosecutor, according to the petitioners, with respect to which notice has been issued, fall within the meaning of “posts and services under the State of Bihar” in “Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners claim that it is statutory obligation upon the State Government of Bihar to provide for reservation against vacancies in posts and services including the posts of Additional Public Prosecutor inasmuch as Section 4 of the Act prescribes 16% of reservation for scheduled castes and 1% for scheduled tribes against the vacancies.

3. Thus, the lone issue, which has been raised in both the writ applications, is as to whether the engagement, as Additional Public Prosecutor, for conducting criminal cases, in a High Court, can be said to be an appointment against “vacancies in posts and services”, within the meaning of the Act.

4. Before we advert to the brief foundational facts of the present writ applications and the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be apt to mention at this stage itself that the engagement of advocates as Additional Public Prosecutors, in question, is, admittedly, covered by Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and not Section 25 of the Code.

5. We have heard Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Bihar/Office of the Advocate General, Bihar, and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel, for the Patna High Court.

6. Petitioner No.1 of CWJC No. 7872 of 2013 has been described as Bihar State SC/ST Advocates Union through its President, Sri Sadanand Paswan, whereas petitioner No.2 as Bihar State Chouharmal Lok Adhikar Morcha through its Chief Patron, petitioner No.3 is described as the Chairman of Ram Sevak Seva Sansthan; whereas petitioner of CWJC No. 22552 of 2013 has described himself as member of Bharat Mukti Morcha, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it is their case that under Section 4 of the Act, 50% of all vacancies, under the State, are required to be filled up from the candidates belonging to various reserved categories, which has not been taken care of in the impugned notice and, therefore, it is in the teeth of the provisions of the Act, and not sustainable.

7. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the engagement of the nature, sought to be made through the notice issued by the office of the Advocate General, is, in substance, filling of the vacancies in posts and services in an establishment under the State of Bihar, though such appointments are to be made from amongst the practising advocates. He has submitted that with ch