JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of November, 2022 The petitioners are lawyers practicing before various courts in Thrissur District. At the instance of the State Government, the District Collector, Thrissur, invited applications for appointment to the post of Special Public Prosecutor in Fast Track Special Courts under POCSO Act, 2012 in Thrissur District. The petitioners also submitted their applications and are aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names in the panel of eligible candidates published by the District Collector. The petitioners allege that their names were illegally excluded, as the panel was prepared without following the procedure prescribed under Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 32 of the POCSO Act and Rule 8 of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Case Rules, 1978 (“KGLO Rules”)

2. Advocates P.Chandrasekhar and K.Shaj appearing for the petitioners put forth the following contentions;

In the absence of any Rules under the POCSO Act prescribing the procedure for appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, a Division Bench of this Court in Aju Mathew and others v State of Kerala, rep. By its Secretary, Tvm and others [2018 (5) KHC 770] had observed that the procedure for appointment of Special Public Prosecutors could be in accordance with Section 24(4) of Cr.P.C and the KGLO Rules. In the KGLO Rules, the procedure for appointment of Law Officers is prescribed under Rule 8, as per which the appointment is to be made by the Government from a panel of eligible Advocates prepared by the District Collector in consultation with the concerned District and Sessions Judge. For this purpose, the District Collector has to draw up a list of Advocates who, according to his opinion, are fit to be appointed. Thereafter, the list should be sent to the District and Sessions Judge for consultation. On receipt of the list, the District and Sessions Judge should assess the suitability of the enlisted persons and return the list with his remarks within ten days. Thereupon, the District Collector should prepare the panel of Advocates based on the list forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge. While preparing the panel, the District Collector shall not include the name of any Advocate whose name was disapproved by the District and Sessions Judge on specific grounds. For the purpose of assessing suitability, the character and antecedents of all persons included in the panel should be verified through the Superintendent of Police. In complete derogation of the above procedure, from the list of 38 Advocates forwarded by the District Collector to the District and Sessions Judge for consultation, names of 21 Advocates, including the petitioners were deleted and the truncated list returned to the District Collector. Not only does the District Judge have the authority to delete names from the list but the deletion itself was done without assessing the suitability of individual candidates.

3. It is argued that, absolutely no material is available in the records to show as to how the suitability of 38 Advocates was assessed by the District and Sessions Judge. On the other hand, the statement shows that the assessment was done in a very casual manner, without considering any of the relevant aspects, including the character and antecedents of the candidates. It is pointed out that the admitted case of the respondents is that the police verification report was not made available to the District Judge at the time of assessment of suitability of the candidates. Even otherwise, the District Judge can only make his remarks about the Advocates included in the list sent by the District Collector. It is for the District Collector to prepare a panel of suitable candidates based on the remarks of the District Judge. The Division Bench decision in Vindo E.R v State of Kerala and others [2016 (4) KHC 737], had clearly delineated the difference between terms 'list and panel'. The '