The sole question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that there was violation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in the appointment of the appellant inasmuch as the consultation between the District Magistrate, Barpeta (respondent and the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta was not reduced to writing. The material facts are hardly in dispute. Suffice it to say that the appellant (the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) was appointed as the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Bajali on 2-6-2012 till her engagement as Additional Public Prosecutor on 20-2-2015 after replacing the respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner). The respondent No. 1 had been appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor, Bajali on 29-8-2002. It would appear that the respondent 2 issued the WT message dated 19-1-2012 to the respondent 5 requesting him to furnish a fresh panel of Advocate at the ration of 1:3 for appointment to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor (0ne post) and the post of Assistant Government Advocate (one post), which was marked to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta and the Sub-Divisional Judic