1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my learned brother, which discusses all relevant aspects of these Writ Appeals, in considerable detail. I am in entire agreement with his conclusions, and, if I am appending a brief, separate judgment, it is only because of the importance of the vital aspect.

2. The facts on the record themselves are incontrovertibly established, and, indeed, there are no two views permissible on the facts. Briefly stated, in making the appointment of the first respondent to the office of the Public Prosecutor, North Arcot Sessions Division, the State was not appointing a person who had been nominated by the Collector, or was any nominee of the Collector, under R.45 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The view to the contrary, taken by the learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) is clearly based on a misconception of the actual facts of the record, as my learned brother has so plainly shown.

3. On this aspect, which is the factual aspect, it is sufficient to be very brief. As the rule makes it mandatory for the Collector to consult the Sessions Judge, what actually happened was that the Collector referred the names of 17 Advocates, furnished by the Bar Asso