The petitioner, who is a Special Public Prosecutor

in the Special Court constituted under the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act

for short) as per Ext.P1 order, has filed this writ

petition challenging Ext.P3 letter by which the

Government took steps for termination of service of

Additional Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors

of 13 Districts except Kottayam, where the post was

vacant in order to make new appointment at 14 District

Court Centres. By Ext.P3 the Law Secretary addressed

the District Collectors of various Districts requesting

them to furnish fresh panel of Advocates to be

appointed as District Government Pleaders in

consultation with the District Judges concerned

complying with the procedure laid down in Rule 8(2) of

Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and

Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978

('KGLO Rules' for short).

3

2. The petitioner who was practising as an

Advocate was appointed as Additional Government Pleader

and Additional Public Prosecutor at Ernakulam in the

year 2012. While so she was appointed as Special Public

Prosecutor, as per Ext.P1 order dated 3.12.2013, in

the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam

which is designated as Special Court for trial of cases

relating to atrocities and sexual violence against

women and children. Her terms and conditions of

service, duties etc. were as prescribed in KGLO Rules

as amended from time to time. Her appointment made

under section 32 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was notified as

per Ext.P5 in Kerala Gazette dated 03.12.2013. This

writ petition was filed when Ext.P3 letter was issued

initiating proceedings for fresh appointment of Special

Prosecutors in all the Districts, challenging the

proceedings to replace her.

3. According to the petitioner her appointment as

per Ext.P1 was not for a particular term and therefore

her services cannot be terminated without giving her

any notice or opportunity of hearing. She claimed that

4

she cannot be sent out of service except on limited

grounds of lack of honesty, integrity and/or competency

or if the Government is satisfied that the new

appointee is more qualified than her.

4. The petitioner relied on Ext.P4 judgment in

WP(C) No.21469 of 2016 and a batch of cases in which

the very same Ext.P3 order was under challenge by the

Special Public Prosecutors of various districts. In

Ext.P4 judgment while disposing of a batch of cases

relating

to

termination

of

services

of

District/Additional District Government Pleaders and

Public Prosecutors including the Special Public

Prosecutors, it was ordered that the Special Public

Prosecutors appointed under the POCSO Act can be

terminated from service only on valid reasons which can

be justified in the backdrop of the provisions under

the POCSO Act. It was held that on the basis of Ext.P3

communication the service of the Special Public

Prosecutors appointed under the POCSO Act cannot be

terminated.

5. The 1^st respondent filed a counter affidavit

5

pointing out that the petitioner's appointment was made

under the provisions contained in section 32 of the

POCSO Act as well as under the KGLOs Rules. As per rule

9 of those rules, the term of appointment of Government

Law Officers is only for a period of three years. The

1^st respondent stated that it has got every right to

search for a meritorious and a more competent Advocate

to represent the State. Under rule 11(4) of the KGLO

Rules the Government has every authority to terminate

the services of Special Government Pleaders and Special

Public Prosecutors on expiry of their normal tenure;

trust and confidence of the Government is of utmost

importance and is a matter of primary concern, while

making appointment to the post of a Special Public

Prosecutor.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on

the judgment in State of UP and another vs. Johri Mal :

AIR 2004 SCC 3800. It