Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. In all the three writ applications common question is involved and, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in WPS No. 3461 of 2007 namely Pratap Narayan Gope has prayed for quashing of the notification contained in memo No. 2389 dated 22/06/2007 whereby the respondent No. 6 Tribhuwan Nath Upadhyay was asked to function as Public Prosecutor in the Civil Court, jamshedpur, which, which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of Cr. P.C as well as the law laid down by Patna High Court in the case of "Jititlhari Roy and Ors. v. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R, 558" wherein it has been held that no Assistant Public Prosecutor can be appointed on the post of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor unless he resigns from his original post on which he was appointed by the State Government. According to the petitioner his name was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner to the State Government for his continuance on the post of Public Prosecutor, which had expired in 2005 since it was a tenure post for three years only but no decision has yet. been taken by the State Government.

3. The petitioner Anil Kumar Man to in WPS No. 3983 of 2007 has also challenged the same very notification dated 22/06/2007 whereby respondent No. 6 Ram Bilas Prasad Sah has been asked to function as Public Prosecutor in Civil Court, Jamtara.

4. The petitioners Prem Chandra Agrawal, Mahendra Kumar Tiwari, Shashi Bhushan Prasad Bhagat and Akhileshwar Prasad Yadav in WPS No. 4389 of 2007 have also challenged the same notification dated 22/06/2007 whereby respondent nos. 11 to 14 namely, Mr. Haripad Mahto, Mr. Shyam Narayan Sahu, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Choudhary and Md. Abdush Salam were asked to function as Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Civil Courts at Bokaro, Daltonganj, Latehar and Deoghar.

5. The grounds for challenge of the aforesaid notification are exactly the same in all the aforesaid three writ applications.

6. All the writ petitioners were appointed as Public Prosecutors in between the year 2002-2003 for a period of three years. Admittedly, the tenure of the said post has already expired after completion of three years from the date of their appointment.

7. The grievance of the petitioners is that though their names were sent to the Government duly recommended by the respective Deputy Commissioners of the Districts but in stead of acting on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner for their appointment us Public Prosecutors, the State Government by issue of notification contained in Memo No. 2389 dated 22/06/2007 has asked the persons named in the said notification to work as Acting Public Prosecutors on their own posts as additional charge and on their own pay scale till further orders. A copy of the notification has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application.

8. The petitioners have based their whole case on the basis of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of "Jaidhari Roy and Ors. v. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R, 558" in which the Patna High Court while interpreting Section 24(6) (as amended by Bihar Act 16 of 1984) and Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has held that the Assistant Public Prosecutors cannot claim appointment as Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors on the basis of Sub-section (6) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the Assistant Public prosecutors belong to a service in which there is no post of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor. The Assistant Public Prosecutors conducting cases before the Magisterial Courts in the State of Bihar under the control and supervision of Director of Prosecution do not belong to a regular cadre of prosecuting officers as contemplated under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal