The court affirmed that the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors must follow statutory requirements without judicial reassessment of candidates' merits unless illegality is demonstrated in the selection process.

JUDGMENT

The appointment of Special Public Prosecutor in POCSO courts in Kannur District is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a practising Advocate at Kannur and Thalassery. She submitted application for appointment as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct cases coming under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) pursuant to Ext.P2 notification issued on 28.6.2017. The petitioner submitted her application before the District Collector along with her biodata and all the relevant certificates, including certificates regarding her conduct and performance of cases as contained in Ext.P3 series. The petitioner submits that the District Collector forwarded the application to the District Judge and the District Judge, on being convinced of her ability and experience included her as sl.no.1 in Ext.P4 list. However By Ext.P5 order, Government appointed the 3rd respondent who was No.2 in Ext.P4 list. Producing the application submitted by the 3rd respondent along with certificates attached to it the petitioner submits that she is the most competent person who should have been appointed in preference to the 3rd respondent.

3. The petitioner submits that she was rank No.2 in the rank list for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II, for appointment on provisional basis. She worked as Asst.Public Prosecutor Gr.II on a provisional basis, in the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Thalassery for the period from 4.3.2011 to 4.3.2017 with additional charge of various 1st Class Magistrates Courts in Kannur District. She was put in full additional charge of Juvenile Justice Court, Thalassery from 17.12.2012 to 4.3.2017. She conducted various cases under the POCSO Act and attended various training programs conducted by the Director of Prosecutions, Erankulam between 4.3.2011 and 4.3.2017. She acted as a Translator also at times at the request of the presiding officers as she is well versed with Hindi. She was in charge of all the POCSO cases which were pending before the Court. Out of the 13 cases, 4 were disposed of while she was posted there. She claims to have received rich encomiums from the presiding officers and alleges that the 3rd respondent does not have any such qualification or experience. Relying on the judgment of Apex Court in State of Punjab & anr. v. Brijeshwar Singh Chachal & anr. : (2016) 6 SCC 1 petitioner alleges that appointment of the 3rd respondent is vitiated by political consideration giving least consideration to merit.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 as well the 3rd respondent have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent it is stated that the State Government had issued a communication to the District Collectors directing them to furnish a panel of qualified Advocates from each Districts in consultation with the District Judges, for appointment as Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act with direction to comply with provisions of section of 24(4) of Cr.PC. It is stated that pending the framing of the POCSO Rules, Government had issued GO(Rt) 2117/2017/Home dated 8.8.2017, according to which, appointment of Special Public Prosecutors in the special courts under the POCSO Act would be done complying with and adopting Section 24 (4) of Cr.P. C and Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. The District Collectors of the respective Districts prepared panels in compliance with Sec 24(4) of Cr.PC in consultation with the District and Sessions Judges concerned, for appointment of Special Public Prosecutors. It is pointed out that the process adopted for the selection is approved by this Court in the judgment dated 3.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No.22255 of 2017. According to Government the appointment is made strictly in accordance with rules. The appointment of the 3rd respondent was from a panel forwarded by the District Collector in consultation with the District Judge