The court emphasized the need for clear recruitment notifications and adherence to consultative processes in appointing public prosecutors to ensure eligible candidates are not excluded.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. Both these writ petitions have been filed by practicing Lawyers challenging the selection for appointment to the post of Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor.

2. In W.P.(C) No.16469 of 2025, the petitioner is a Lawyer practicing in different Courts in Alappuzha District. The petitioner has 25 years of practice. Ext.P2 notice dated 18.12.2024 was issued inviting application for the post of Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor. As the petitioner satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed in the notice, he submitted Ext.P3 application.

3. The petitioner states that the District Judge did not offer any specific comment about five Lawyers who were included in the list forwarded by the District Collector. The District Judge made only a general observations that those Lawyers have no expected experience in conducting trial of Sessions Cases including murder cases and criminal appeals. Finally, the 4^th respondent was appointed as Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor.

4. According to the petitioner, the selection and appointment of the 4^th respondent violates Rule 7 of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. The selection also violates the law laid down by this Court in the judgments in Sanjeesh S.S. v. State of Kerala, 2023 KHC 582, Aju Mathew and others v. State of Kerala, 2018 (5) KHC 770 and Vinod E.R. v. State of Kerala and others, 2016 (4) KHC 737.

5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16901 of 2025 is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala in the year 2001. The additional 4^th respondent was appointed as Government Pleader / Public Prosecutor. The petitioner would urge that the additional 4^th respondent does not have the knowledge and experience in the conduct of Sessions Cases or criminal appeals.

6. The petitioner would argue that he satisfied the eligibility condition prescribed in Section 18 of BNSS . However, since the notice was meant for filling up the post of Government Pleader alone, he did not respond to the same on a belief that there would be separate recruitment drive for the post of Public Prosecutor. The additional 4^th respondent was appointed as Public Prosecutor as well, which is impermissible.

7. The 3^rd respondent-District Collector filed counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.16469 of 2025. The 3^rd respondent stated that the newly appointed District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Aluva is from among the three Advocates recommended by the District and Sessions Judge, Alappuzha.

8. The 3^rd respondent submitted that the District Collector, while preparing the list of Advocates for being appointed as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor had included the name of the petitioner in the list of Advocates and the same was forwarded to the District and Sessions Judge for consultation. The District Judge recommended the names of only three Advocates out of eight. The name of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16469 of 2025 was not recommended by the District Judge. The 3^rd respondent further submitted that effective consultations with the District and Sessions Judge were made before effecting appointment.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution representing the Government and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.

10. Selection for appointment to the post