Lack of sufficient evidence prevents judicial intervention in the appointing authority's decisions under S.24 CrPC.

1. The petitioner is a practicing advocate in the Courts at Tanuku. The post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanku, has fallen vacant. Steps were initiated in accordance with S.24 of CrPC, for appointment of an incumbent to the post. Petitioner asserts that the names of himself, the 3rd respondent and another were recommended by the District and Sessions Judge, West - Godavari, Eluru, and the panel was forwarded to the District Collector, the 2nd respondent. According to him, the 2nd respondent inserted the name of another advocate, on his own accord, and forwarded the panel to the 1st respondent. Through order in G. O. Rt. No. 45, dated 12-1-2005, the 1st respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as Additional Public Prosecutor, for a term of three years. The petitioner challenges the same.

2. Sri K. V. Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure prescribed under S.24 CrPC, is very clear, and it does not permit of inclusion of any names, by the District Collector, on his own accord. He contends that though the person, whose name was included by the 2nd respondent, was not appointed, there is a serious blow to the entire consultative process, and thereby the impugned order is vitiated. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. , AIR 1993 SC 2436 : 1993 CriLJ 3140, learned counsel submits that wherever violation of the procedure prescribed under S.24 CrPC, the entire proceedings may be vitiated.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that except making vague allegation that the 2nd respondent has included the name of an advocate in the panel, on his own accord, the petitioner did not place any material before this Court. He contends that the respondents 1 and 2 followed the procedure prescribed under S.24 CrPC, meticulously, and the impugned proceedings are not vitiated in any manner.

4. The matter of appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors to the concerned Courts is governed by the procedure prescribed under S.24 of CrPC. Sub-section (4) thereof mandates that the District Magistrate (Collector) shall prepare a panel of names of persons, in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, for the purpose of appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. It is not in dispute that the name of the 3rd respondent figured in the panel of advocates, prepared by the 2nd respondent, in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge. Once that is so, the High Court in exercise of powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, cannot embark on assessment of relative merits of the candidates. It is for the appointing authority, namely, the 1st respondent to choose the advocate, by itself, from the panel, for appointment as Public Prosecutor. The allegation of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent included the name of the advocate, on his own accord, is not even prima facie substantiated, so as to enable this Court to require the respondents 1 and 2 to answer the same. This Court cannot undertake a roving enquiry in the matter, in the absence of definite allegations.

5. The subject matter of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was, the extension of the term of existing incumbents. It was held that there is nothing like renewal or extension of appointment of Public Prosecutors under S.24 CrPC, and the entire procedure applicable for appointment applies for extending the term of the existing incumbents. Such a question does not arise in this case. Further, the Supreme Court laid down the parameters of interference by the Courts in such matters. It was held that