( 1 ) THE fate of this writ petition hinges on the upright on the following questions :1. Whether the duties of the public prosecutor/government Advocate are statutory in nature? If so, its effect?

( 2 ) WHETHER the public prosecutor/government Advocate is a public servant holding a civil post and cannot be removed without affording him a reasonable opportunity as contemplated under the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice?

( 3 ) WHETHER before appointing a public prosecutor/government Advocate, consultation with the High Court is necessary, in view of the undertaking given by the Advocate General and the practices or conventions?

( 4 ) WHETHER a tenure appointment can be cut short by removing the appointee without giving him an opportunity to show cause?

( 5 ) WHETHER a public prosecutor/government Advocate appointed under a spoils system and can be removed by the spoils system and can be removed by the sweet discretion of the State and such a removal cannot be subjected to judicial review?2. Before delving into the questions involved in this writ petition it would be necessary to look into the factual matrix as set out in the writ petition. 3. On 6-8-1993 the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Public Prosecutor, after consultation with the High Court for a term up to 31-8-1994. On completion of that period, the term of the petitioner was extended for further three years. At the relevant time one Mr. Ravindra Singh, Advocate, was holding the office of the public prosecutor. Mr. Ravindra Singh resigned somewhere in the month of June 1995. In consequence thereof the petitioner was entrusted with the duties of the Public Prosecutor and continued to discharge the same till his regular appointment. The State Government recommended the name of the petitioner to the High Court for prior consultation under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as existed prior to thedeletion of the words "after consultation with the High Court" by Act No. XVIII of 1991. The High Court accorded its approval and thereafter on 1-1-1996 the State Government appointed the petitioner as a Public Prosecutor at Allahabad for a fixed term of three years. 4. It has been asserted by the petitioner that no charge or complaint against his performance ever existed, and four successive Chief Standing Counsel as well as Legal Remembrancers of the Government found the work of the petitioner as satisfactory. The petitioner appeared before important Benches in the High Court and received commendations from the Benches. 5. On 6-11-1997 the State Government removed eight Law Officers including the petitioner by means of an order simpliciter. On the same date respondent No. 3 was appointed by the State Government as a Public Prosecutor in place of the petitioner. Both the orders have been assailed in this writ petition.

( 6 ) DRASTIC amendments were carried out in the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 1973. Under Section 2 (u) of the amended Code of Criminal Procedure "public Prosecutor" was defined, and under section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the procedure for appointment was prescribed by means of which the Public Prosecutor can be appointed under consultation with the High Court. The duties of the Public Prosecutor are somewhat statutory in nature which is evident from various sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as N. D. P. S. Act and Terrorism and Destructive Activities (Prevention) Act. The Public Prosecutor is paid Rs. 1975. 00 as retainership besides Rs. 500. 00 per day as fee.

( 7 ) IN Mahadeo v. Shantibhai, (1969) 2 SCR 422 Honble Supreme Court held that a lawyer engaged by the Railway Administration during the continuance of engagement was holding an "office of profit". In Smt. Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana, AIR 1970 SC 694, the Constitutional Bench of Honble Court (per Ma-jority Hidayatullah, C. J. , and Mitter, J. contra), it was observed