ORDER :

1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks a direction to declare the action of the second respondent in issuing the proceedings No.72/A2/2015, dated 18.3.2021, which are impugned herein, terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad, with effect from 19.3.2021 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in pursuance of the guidelines laid down in G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 06.12.2000, the petitioner was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad, on 18.3.2015, vide G.O.Rt.No.206 dated 18.3.2015 and upon expiry of the period of three years on 18.3.2018, the third respondent herein, by virtue of his powers conferred under Instruction 11 of the G.O.No.187, continued the petitioner for a period of three months beyond his tenure from 19.3.2018 to 18.6.2018 and subsequently from 19.6.2018 till regular appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor to the said Court is made. The said action of the third respondent herein was ratified by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1053 dated 19.7.2018. The petitioner is continuing in the said post as such without any allegation of any kind at any point of time. While so, the services of the petitioner came to an end by 18.3.2021. As such the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings which were served on the petitioner through email. The grievance of the petitioner is that as on date the appointment of regular Additional Public Prosecutor to the said Court has not been made and hence the impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction.

3. The respondents filed counter contending inter-alia that the Government issued orders of amendment to Instruction No.11 of the G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 06.12.2000, vide G.O.Rt.No.591 Law (L2) Department dated 06.4.2010, by virtue of which the second respondent herein may take interim arrangements in case of death, resignation, absence, expiry of term of the Public Prosecutors where there is necessity and urgency and obtain ratification from the Government and in pursuance of which the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 19.3.2021 in consonance with the standing instructions of the Government issued through Memo No.915/LSP/RL/L1/02, dated 01.7.2002 wherein it has been directed to terminate the engagement of a Law Officer appointed in a subordinate court after expiry of period of six years in office at a stretch either by way of appointment in successive terms or where a Law Officer is initially appointed for a period of three years and thereafter he is continued on in charge basis for a further period of three years and that in such cases other nearby Law Officer or an eligible advocate may be placed in charge of the post.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision of appointing in-charge for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor while the duly appointed person is rendering his services in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.1053 dated 19.7.2018. He further submits that no notice is served on the petitioner well in advance as per instruction No.9 of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 16.12.2000. It is his final submission that the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground of completion of six years term is arbitrary as the list of names of second panel of advocates is still pending before the Government. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held between Pathuri Venkateswarlu V. Government of A.P., (2005) 1 ALD (Cri) 658.

5. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Home and perused the record.

6. The very grievance of the petitioner is that there is no provision of appointing in-charge for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor while the duly appointed person is rendering his services in accordance