The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government can terminate the services of Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act only for valid reasons justified in the backdrop of the provisions of the POCSO Act and after complying with a transparent procedure.

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

1. The judgment dated 26.09.2016 passed in W.P(C) No.21469 of 2016 is called in question by the State in this appeal.

2. Records reveal that the respondents, writ petitioners, were appointed as Additional Government Pleaders and Additional Public Prosecutors in various districts of Kerala State in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Rules'). The said appointments were initially for a period of three years from the date of assuming charge. However, their term was further extended for another period of three years from 2014 onwards. While working as Additional Government Pleaders and Additional Public Prosecutors, Exhibit P2 notification dated 05.11.2015 was published in the Official Gazette appointing them as Special Additional Public Prosecutors in all Additional District and Sessions Courts in the State, except Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam where Special Public Prosecutor was already appointed, for conducting the cases under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'POCSO Act'). Another notification Exhibit P3 came to be issued on 13.01.2016 clarifying the names of Additional Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors, who were also appointed as Special Public Prosecutors, to deal with the cases under POCSO Act. The names of all the respondents find a place in Exhibit P3 notification. From that date onwards, the respondents were not only working as Government Advocates/Additional Public Prosecutors, but also as Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act, which means that the very person, who was appointed as Government Pleader-cum- Public Prosecutor to handle the cases in District and Sessions Court in Kerala, was entrusted with the duties of conducting the case on behalf of the State under the POCSO Act as Special Public Prosecutor. In otherwords, an additional designation is given to the very person, viz. the designation of Special Public Prosecutor under POCSO Act, in addition to the designation of the Government Advocate-cum-Public Prosecutor.

3. When the facts stood thus, Exhibit P4 communication was issued by the State Government to the District Collectors of all the districts mentioning therein that the Government have decided to terminate the services of Additional Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors of thirteen districts, except Kottayam, where the post is vacant, and that the Government intend to make new appointment of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors at fourteen district court centres. By the very communication, the State Government had directed the concerned District Collectors to furnish panel of advocates to be appointed as District Government Pleaders in consultation with the District Judges concerned.

4. The communication at Exhibit P4 was questioned by the respondents before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which came to be dismissed. The order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vinod v. State of Kerala [2016 (3) KLT 920]. Thus, it is clear that Exhibit P4 is already confirmed by this Court as back as on 27th July, 2016. Consequently, the respondents, who were working as Additional Government Advocates-cum-Additional Public Prosecutors are now sought to be replaced by another set of advocates.

5. The respondents having felt that State Government may terminate their appointments as Special Public Prosecutors under POCSO Act have approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.21469 of 2016 seeking to quash Exhibit P4 and declare that the services of the petitioners as Special Public Prosecutors in Special Courts formed under POCSO Act are not liable to be terminated until the Special Courts cease to exist or till the formulation of appropriate rule