Surya Kant, J.

1. By this order we shall dispose of CWPs No.2599 of 1984; 15372 of 1989; 5545 of 1994; 8466 of 1999 and 7076 of 2007 as these cases involve common legal issues for adjudication.

2. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, vide an order dated May 24, 1995, made the following reference for consideration by a larger Bench:-

"The basic point involved in the present writ petition is about the vires of Rule 9 of the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service (Group A) Rules 1979 as also Rule 9 of the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service (Group B) Rules, 1979 which provide for filling up of 25 per cent of the vacancies to the posts of District Attorneys and Deputy District Attorneys by direct recruitment. In view of the detailed narration of facts and the law point in the order of reference dated August 5, 1993, is not considered appropriate to repeat the entire factual position. It has been canvassed by the counsel for the petitioners that Rule 9 of 1979 Rules being in sharp contrast to the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is ultra vires. The case was referred to the Full Bench on account of some observations made in the Division Bench judgement of this Court in D.D. Vasudev v. The State of Haryana and others, 1981(2) S.L.R. 735. Before us the counsel for the State has sought the help of Gulab Singh Deputy District Attorney and others vs. State of Haryana and others,2 1980(2) S.L.R. 561 for upholding the vires of Rule 9 of 1979 Rules. There is no doubt that Rule 9 was held to be intra vires but in our considered view the vires of Rules 9 were tested in Gulab Singhs case,2 (supra) on altogether different grounds than the one being pressed before us as also the same were challenged half-heartedly as has been observed by their Lordships of the Full Bench. In our considered view Gulab Singhs case,2 (supra) deserves re-consideration and this Bench being of co-ordinate jurisdiction having equal strength, it would be more appropriate that the matter is placed before the Larger Bench. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the papers of the case before Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench."

3. Though the three-Judges Bench did not frame any specific questions of law inviting decision by this five-Judges Bench, however, the reference order explicitly indicates that the Bench while considering the vires of Rule 9 of the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Services (Group A) Rules, 1979 (in short, the Group A Rules) as also Rule 9 of the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Services (Group B) Rules, 1979 (in short, the Group B Rules) perceived some conflict between these Rules and Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the Rules had already been held intra vires in two decisions of this Court in Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana2 1980(2) SLR 561 and DD Vasudeva v. State of Haryana, 1981(2) S.L.R. 735 and Gulab Singhs case,2 (supra) having been decided by a co-ordinate Bench, that the matter were directed to be placed before a larger Bench.

4. In essence, we have been called upon to determine as to (i) whether appointment by way of direct recruitment against the posts of Public Prosecutor is in derogation of Section 24(6) & (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? and (ii) whether Rule 9 of Haryana State Prosecution Legal Services (Group A) Services Rules, 1979 and the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Services (Group B) Services Rules, 1979 are liable to be struck down being in direct conflict with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

5. For better appreciation of the issues involved, a brief reference to the facts extracted from CWP No.15372 of 1989, along with relevant Rules and the Statues may be made.

6. Petitioners No.1 to 7 have been working as Deputy District Attorneys whereas petitioners No.8 to 26 have been working as Assistant District Attorneys in the Prosecution Department, Government of Haryana. They seek to strike down the provisions contained in Ru