K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

W.P.C. No.26852 of 2006 was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice issued by the District Collector inviting applications from qualified advocates for appointment as District Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors and Additional Government Pleaders and Additional Public Prosecutors in the Kollam district and for a declaration that the petitioner's service as Additional District Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, Fast Track Court (Adhoc III), Kollam is not liable to be terminated till the expiry of three years period mentioned in his appointment order. Learned single Judge found no illegality in the steps taken to terminate his service and dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same W.A.No.1633 of 2007 was preferred. Against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge W.A. No.1358 of 2007 was preferred.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor at Fast Track Court (Adhoc III), Kollam as per order dated 23.06.2005. His service was terminated as per order G.O.(Ms) No.113/07/Law dated 7.6.07 and the District Collector took steps to appoint an Additional Government Pleader for that court and various other courts. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure followed by the District Collector is illegal and against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. (AIR 1993 SC 2436) as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Omanakuttan Nair v. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT 226). Learned counsel submitted that consultation with the District Judge is not an empty formality. District Judge, it was submitted, would be in a better position to assess the legal and professional calibre of the person recommended for appointment and there is no reason to discard his opinion in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutors.

3. Learned Advocate General submitted that the District Collector has strictly followed the provisions of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 as amended by Government Notification G.O.(Ms) No.70/2002/Law dated 6.3.2002. Learned Advocate General submitted that as per rules, if the District Judge has got any disapproval of a name suggested he must specifically state so and the grounds on which he expresses his disapproval. Learned Advocate General referred to the report of the District Judge dated 25.10.2006 and submitted that he has not specifically disapproved on specific grounds any of the recommendation made by the District Collector and consequently District Collector was justified in appointing persons included in the list prepared by him.

4. The scope of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 came up for consideration before this Court in Omanakuttan Nair's case, supra (2003 (1) KLT 226). The court took the view that the 1978 Rules as well as 2002 Rules, in so far as they deviate from the procedure prescribed for appointment of Public Prosecutors under S.24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Chauhan's case, supra are bad. This Court therefore declared those provisions invalid and unenforceable. It was directed that the procedure prescribed under S.24 (4) for appointment of Public Prosecutors is required to be followed in the manner as interpreted and envisaged by the Supreme Court in Chauhan's case, supra. The court disposed of the above mentioned case placing reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Chauhan's case.

5. We find that the judgment in Omanakuttan Nair's case, supra has been stayed by the Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22770-22774 of 2002 and the same is pending consideration before the Apex Court. Chauhan's case was subsequently considered by Three Judges bench of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. J