Honble MISRA, J. — The point for adjudication in these writ petitions is, whether the petitioner whose term as an Additional Public Prosecutor has expired has a right to continue on the post even after the expiry of the extended term on the plea that the respondents have removed him from the office of the Addl. Public Prosecutor withour effective consultation with the District & Sessions Judge and without following the procedure for appointment of Public Prosecutor/Addl. Public Prosecutor/Special Public Prosecutor and, whether his termination can be said to be violative of the provisions enumerated under Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner has challenged the impugned termination order on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void ab-initio and, thus, inoperative in the eyes of law. It has, therefore, been prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17/7/1990, and for further direction to the respondents to make the payment or arrears of salary, allowances and other claim in regard to the post on which the petitioner asserts to continue.

(2). Before adverting to the plea taken on behalf of the petitioner, the facts of the case which lie in a very narrow ambit are to the following effect :

(3). The petitioner, Tahil Bulani, in Civil Writ Petition No. 5975/1990 was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor vide order dated 5/6.10.1983 which was extended from time to time and the last extension was granted upto 30/6/1990, by letter dated 26/10/1989. Similarly, petitioner Smt. Indira Rathore in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5980/1990 was appointed on 8/11/1985, which was extended from time to time and the last extension was granted upto 30/6/1990 and their services were terminated vide order dated 17/7/1990. Gopal Narain Mathur, petitioner in SBCW No. 5988/1990 was appointed on 16.8.1985. His term was extended upto 30/6/1990. His services were terminated vide order dated 7/1/1991. After the expiry of the petitioners term, extension to them as Addl. Public Prosecutor was refused and, thus, the term of office came to an end, which is now under challenge on various grounds right from drawing the attention of this court to the relevant provisions of Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to the appointment as Public Prosecutor and Addl. Public Prosecutor upto citation of catena of cases relied upon by the petitioners, counsel, out of which only relevant and important ones are referred to hereunder. The most important in the series of decisions cited is the case of Ku. Shrilekha Vidhyarthi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1), wherein the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner for instance in the matter of Mudrika Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2) as also Ram Chandra Vs. Alarigiswami (3), has been extensively considered. Besides the dicisions of the highest court certain judgments of this court delivered in Manak chandvs. State of Rajasthan (4), Bhikha Ram Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 4718/1990), decided on November 20, 1991, as also judgment of the Kerala High Court reported as Susey Jose Vs. Janardhaina Kurup (6) have been referred to by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his cubmission. Although, series of dicisions have been cited in suport of the case of the petitioner challenging his fixed term appointment, an examination of these decisions clearly establishes that the petitioners challenging his fixed term appointment, an examination of these decisions clearly establishes that the petitioners case, on fact, stands on an entirely isolated footing and does not bear any similarity with the facts of those cases relied upon in support of the case of the petitioner.

(4). It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before terminating the services of the petitioners and appointing successors-in-office, the procedure laid down in Rules 12,14 and 16 of the Rajasth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document