1. - Petitioner, Manak Chand, Public Prosecutor, filed this writ petition before this Court on 16th July 1990 and prayed therein that the respondents maybe restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner as Public Prosecutor, Ajmer District or, in the alternative not to terminate the services of the petitioner till 30th June, 1993. It was also prayed that a new appointment is made during the intervening period, then the Court should declare that the present Public Prosecutor that who has been appointed vide order dated, 9-2-90 (Annex. 9), shall continue to hold the office of Public Prosecutor till the expiry of his term of appointment. During the intervering period Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya was appointed as Public Prosecutor as such, the writ petition was amended by the present petitioner and further prayer was made that appointment of Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya may be declared illegal and the present petitioner should be allowed to hold the office of Public Prosecutor till 30th June, 1993.

2. State Government issued wireless message to the District Magistrates of 14 districts requesting them to send the panel of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors for the Sessions Courts and Additional Sessions Courts existing in their respective jurisdiction. District Magistrate, Ajmer, forwarded the panel of five persons vide his letter No. 590 dated 10-7-90. It seems that the District Magistrate has not forwarded the recommendations made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer to the State Government. Court wanted to see the recommendation so made by the learned District and Sessions Judge. The recommendations were not available with the State Government as such, time was given to get the copy of the recommendations made by the learned District and Sessions Judge to the Advocate General. District Magistrate, Ajmer vide his letter dated, 26-3-91 forwarded the copy of the recommendations received by him to the Law Department and copy of the same was placed by the Advocate General on record. Learned District & Sessions Judge recommended six names in the panel. The name of Shri Krishna Avtar was deleted from the panel by the District Magistrate for the reasons best known to him. The names of other five persons were recommended. In the recommendations made by the Collector as well as District & Sessions Judge, the name of present petitioner, Manak Chand, as well as the new appointee Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya finds place.

3. District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in his panel submitted that Manak Chand is having wide experience of the post of Public Prosecutor and he is performing his duties in a very efficient way and to the utmost satisfaction of the Court. As far as the new appointee Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya is concerned, it was stated that it seems that he is an industrious Advocate of good character and he may be able to perform the duties of the office of Public Prosecutor. Learned District & Sessions Judge in his recommendation also observed about Shri S.K. Bhargava, Shri S.K. Verma and Shri Pratap Kumar that they are senior Advocates and are having vast experience and they are very serious towards the performance of their duties and they are efficient Advocates.

4. State Government without giving notice terminated the services of the petitioner. However, realising the mistake after termination of service, they served one month's notice to the Public Prosecutor, Manak Chand during the pendency of this Writ Petition about the termination of his service. Shri Manak Chand, present petitioner, raised the following issues in his writ petition:

"1. Whether the service of the petitioner which were extended upto 30th June 1993 vide order dated, 7th February 1990 (Appex. 9) can be terminated before the expiry of the term without any cause?"

5. Shri B.L. Samdaria, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has also raised the issue that the act of the Government is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and mala