Reyasat Ali Khan v. State Of Bihar — 1995 DIGILAW 491 (PAT)

Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. The petitioner herein has challenged the legality and validity of the two orders, Annexure 1 and 2, dated 22nd April, 1993 and 19th July, 1993 respectively, whereby respondent No.5 herein was appointed initially as Public Prosecutor in-charge on temporary basis vide Annexure 1, and thereafter appointed as the Public Prosecutor fur the district of Bhagalpur for a period of three years with effect from the date on which he assumed charge as Public Prosecutor in-charge vide Annexure-2. 2. The challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 5 is mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the District Magistrate in consultation with the District Judge of Bhagalpur did not include the name of respondent No.5 in the panel of names of persons, who, in his opinion were fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors and, therefore, the State Government could not, in view of the provisions of Sec. 24(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure appoint respondent No.5 as the Public Prosecutor fur the districts of Bhagalpur. 3. It is secondly contended that the appointment of respondent No.5 is malafide, inasmuch as it is by way of political patronage, rather than on considerations relevant fur the appointment of a Public Prosecutor under Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The facts of the case in so far as they are relevant, are not in dispute. The petitioner herein was appointed as the Public Prosecutor for the district of Bhagalpur on 1st June, 1985 but even though his tenure came to an end after three years, as required, he performed the duties of that office till 24th April, 1993, when Annexure 1. was issued. A letter was addressed to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur by the Secretary Indlarge. Department of Law of the Government of Bihar dated 22.4.1993 bringing to the notice of the District Magistrate that the term of appointment of the present Public Prosecutor had come to an end in June, 1988. The Government had decided to appoint respondent No. 5, Sri Md Wasil Khan, Advocate, an Additional Public Prosecutor, to take charge of the post of Public Prosecutor till a regular Public Prosecutor was appointed for the district. The Government had decided to appoint respondent No. 5, Sri Md Wasil Khan, Advocate, an Additional Public Prosecutor, to take charge of the post of Public Prosecutor till a regular Public Prosecutor was appointed for the district. The appointment of the petitioner, who was then functioning as a Public Prosecutor was to come to an end automatically with effect from the date on which respondent No. 5 took charge of the office of In-charge Public Prosecutor. 5. The filets which preceded the issuance of Annexure-1 are as follows: By letter dated 9th July, 1990 the Secretary of the Department of Law wrote to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur intimating that the Government proposed to appoint a Public Prosecutor fur the district of Bhagalpur, and in that connection it had decided to obtain the recommendation of the local authorities recommending the names of 11 Advocates for appointment to the post of Public Prosecutor. In view of this decision it was not possible on make an appointment on the basis of the earlier recommendation. The District Magistrate was, therefore, requested to recommend the names of 11 candidates with their bio-data after consultation with the District and Sessions Judge. !he District Magistrate was also required to give his clear opinion with regard to the ability, industry, reputation and prestige at the Bar of the persons whose names were recommended. The aforesaid communication has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar also wrote to the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, to submit his proposal to the District Magistrate Bhagalpur, so that the District; Magistrate could make his recommendation to the Government for appointment of a Public Prosecutor. The District Judge, Bhagalpur, by his letter dated 30th March, 1991, addressed to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur (Annexure-6) suggested a panel of 11 names fur appointment of Public Prosecutor in order of preference, keep in view the guidelines given from time to time. From the aforesaid letter it appears that the name of the petitioner was recommended at serial No.1 in order of preference. The name of respondent No.5 does not find place in the list submitted by the District and Sessions judge Bhagalpur. From the aforesaid letter it appears that the name of the petitioner was recommended at serial No.1 in order of preference. The name of respondent No.5 does not find place in the list submitted by the District and Sessions judge Bhagalpur. After receiving the panel of 11 names from the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur by his letter dated 13.4.1991 (Annexure-7) recorded his agreement with the recommendation of the District and Sessions Judge, and forwarded the said panel to the State Government along-with the bio-data of the persons recommended. 6. Despite the submission of the panel by the District Magistrate in consultation with the District Judge containing 11 names, the State Government did not take any action in the matter, and it was only after about a year, on 20th April, 1992, that the Secretary, Department of Law, intimated to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, that the Government had not been able to take a decision with regard to the appointment of Public Prosecutor for the district and, therefore, he was requested to again recommended 11 names of Advocates With their bio-data for appointment of Public Prosecutor. The last line of the letter mentioned that while making the recommendation, his opinion with regard to Sri Yudhistir Mandal, Advocate, may also be sent. Once again the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, suggested a panel of 10 names to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur for appointment of Public Prosecutor. Once again the District and Sessions Judge (different from the one who had earlier prepared a panel of 11 names) recommended the petitioner at serial No.1. in order of preference. The name of respondent No.5 was not included in the panel prepared by the District and Sessions Judge, but the name of Sri. Yudhistir Mandal was included in the at list serial No. 7 the letter of the District and Sessions Judge been annexed as Annexure-9. After receipt of the panel proposed by the District and Sessions Judge Bhagalpur, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, recording his agreement with the suggestion of the District and session Judge, recommended the said names to the Government for the appointment of Public Prosecutor for the district of Bhagalpur. The letter containing the recommendation of the District Magistrate been annexed as Annexure-10. After receipt of the panel proposed by the District and Sessions Judge Bhagalpur, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, recording his agreement with the suggestion of the District and session Judge, recommended the said names to the Government for the appointment of Public Prosecutor for the district of Bhagalpur. The letter containing the recommendation of the District Magistrate been annexed as Annexure-10. Though the District Magistrate made his recommendation on 21.9.1992, the Government did not take any action and it was only on 25th February, 1993, that the Secretary, Department of Law wrote to the District Magistrate. Bhagalpur by name stating that he had been directed, to request him to submit his comments about Mr. Md. Wasil Khan (respondent No.5 herein) in connection with the appointment of public prosecutor. The district Magistrate was requested to send his comments after consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur through the Special Messenger deputed for this purpose. The communication was to be treated as most urgent. The aforesaid letter of the Secretary, Department of Law is Annexure-11 to the writ petition. A similar letter was, again written to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, by name on 2nd March, 1993, by way of reminder, and a copy thereof was endorsed to the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, with a request that he may give his comments on the subject. The aforesaid letter has been marked as Annexure-12. 7. On 20th March, 1993, the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, wrote to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, on the subject of appointment of Public Prosecutor by reference to the memo endorsed to him dated 2nd March, 1993. Since the letter of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur is-of considerable significance, the relevant part of the same is reproduced below: "With reference to your memo No. 258 dated the 2nd March, 1993 regarding my opinion for appointment of Mr. Wasil Khan, Advocate as Public Prosecutor of Bhagalpur, I have to inform that although I have no occasion to see the work of the aforesaid Mr. Md. Wasil Khan as Advocate in my Court, but I have no objection if the Government wants to appoint him as Public Prosecutor." On receiving the letter of the District and Sessions Judge, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur wrote to the Secretary, Department of Law (Justice) and while enclosing therewith the recommendation of the District and Sessions Judge, also submitted the bio-data of respondent No.5. In the last sentence of the aforesaid letter he stated that he agreed with the recommendation of the District and Sessions Judge with regard to the appointment of Mr. Md Wasil Khan as Public Prosecutor. The letter of the District Magistrate (Annexure-14) is dated 14.4.1993. It was thereafter that the impugned order (Annexure-l) was issued on 22nd April, 1993 appointing respondent No. 5, Mr. Md. Wasil Khan, Advocate, as Public Prosecutor in-charge on temporary basis till the selection of a regular Public Prosecutor. Respondent No.5 thereafter took charge as Public Prosecutor. 8. After about three months on 29.7.1993 the Secretary, Department of Law communicated to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, the decision of the Government appointing respondent No.5 as the Public Prosecutor for the district of Bhagalpur for a period of three years commencing from the date on which he took charge as Public Prosecutor in-charge, with a probationary period of one year. 9. Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure which has to be followed in the matter of appointment of a Public Prosecutor for a district. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide as follows: "(4) The District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion, fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. (5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under Sub-sec. (4). 10. Sub-sec. (4) casts a duty upon the District Magistrate to prepare a panel of names of persons, who, in his opinion, are fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors in consultation with the Sessions Judge. The Sub-sec. obliges the District Magistrate to hold consultation with the Sessions Judge and to prepare a panel of names. The persons whose names are to be included in the panel must be persons who, in his opinion, are fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors. In the performance of his statutory duty the District Magistrate must record his opinion about the fitness of the person recommended. In doing so, apart from consultation with the Sessions Judge, he is not to be influenced by extraneous considerations. In the performance of his statutory duty the District Magistrate must record his opinion about the fitness of the person recommended. In doing so, apart from consultation with the Sessions Judge, he is not to be influenced by extraneous considerations. It is his independent opinion which is to be the basis for his recommendation, and not the opinion of any other person, or an opinion procured from him under some pressure or influence. The express words of the sub-section, and its insistence upon the District Magistrate acting in consultation with the Sessions Judge, clearly spells out the policy of law to select the best person available for appointment as Public Prosecutor. The appointment of a Public Prosecutor is to be made on consideration of merit, and fitness of a person for appointment as Public Prosecutor must be understood accordingly. 11. The power to appoint a Public Prosecutor vests in the State Government, but this is subject to the condition imposed by Sub-sec. (5) that no person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor for a district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under Subsection (4). It is no doubt true that it is the discretion of the State Government to select one of the names from the panel submitted by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge for the purpose of appointment of a Public Prosecutor. The choice of the Government, however, is limited to the names included in the panel, and as noticed earlier, the names included in the panel must be of meritorious persons, who, in the opinion of the District Magistrate are fit for appointment as Public Prosecutor. The importance of the office of the Public Prosecutor cannot be over-emphasized, and it has been highlighted in several decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court that the Public Prosecutor must be a person of high merit, fair and objective, because upon him depends to a large extent the administration of criminal justice. That is why, even the State Government in its letter calling for a panel of names from the District Magistrate referred to ability, industry, reputation and prestige at the Bar, as being relevant considerations on the basis of which the District Magistrate was required to submit a panel of names. That is why, even the State Government in its letter calling for a panel of names from the District Magistrate referred to ability, industry, reputation and prestige at the Bar, as being relevant considerations on the basis of which the District Magistrate was required to submit a panel of names. It cannot be disputed that the office of the Public Prosecutor is a public office and the incumbent has to discharge statutory duties. Obviously, therefore, the person appointed as Public Prosecutor must be one who is not only able and efficient, but also enjoys a reputation and prestige which justify his appointment as Public Prosecutor. The scheme of Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ensures the selection of an able Public Prosecutor by providing for a panel being prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge, and limiting the choice of the State Government to Advocates whose names appear in the panel Obviously, in making his recommendation in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, the District Magistrate is not expected to act on extraneous considerations, and it is expected that the names recommended by the District Magistrate are of persons who command respect and enjoy a reputation for their ability and industry. Since the selection by the State Government is confined to the names recommended by the District Magistrate, extraneous considerations, such as political, are out of question. 12. The facts of this case tell a sorry tale. The term of the office of Public Prosecutor had come to an end in June, 1985. It appears from the letter of the Secretary, Department of Law (Annexure 4) dated 9.7.1990 that the District Magistrate had earlier sent a panel of names with his recommendation to the State Government, but instead of making an appointment from that panel, the State Government decided to call for fresh recommendation by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge. Pursuant to Annexure-4, 11 names were again recommended by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge vide his letter (Annexure 7) dated 13.4.1991. Surprisingly, the Government took no action and again by letter dated 20th April, 1992 vide Annexure-S, the District Magistrate was required to submit yet another fresh panel, again in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge. Surprisingly, the Government took no action and again by letter dated 20th April, 1992 vide Annexure-S, the District Magistrate was required to submit yet another fresh panel, again in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge. The District Magistrate once again submitted a fresh panel of 10 names under cover of his letter (Annexure-10) dated 21.9.1992. Apparently, three panels were submitted by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur in consultation with the Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, and yet the Government did not find it possible to take a decision in the matter. What is, however, surprising is that rather than appointing one of the persons whose name was included in the panel by the District Magistrate, the Secretary, Department of Law wrote to the District Magistrate stating that he had been directed to seek his opinion in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, with regard to the appointment of respondent No.5 as Public Prosecutor. In my view, having regard to the provisions of Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the writing of such a letter by the Law Secretary to the District Magistrate was highly improper. The statute vests in the District Magistrate the power to prepare a panel in consultation with the Sessions Judge of the district on the basis of his opinion. In the preparation of the panel the State Government has no role to play. Such a provision has been deliberately incorporated to exclude interference in the matter of preparation of the panel. This is further reinforced by Sub-sec. (5) which in terms provides that the State Government shall not appoint anyone as the Public Prosecutor unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge. The law, therefore, dearly demarcates the two domains by providing that the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge shall prepare the panel, and after such a panel is received by the State Government, it may appoint a Public Prosecutor, but it cannot appoint a person as a Public Prosecutor unless his name appears in the panel prepared by the District Magistrate under Subsection (4) The discretion of the State Government is only with regard to the choice of the candidate whose name is included in the panel, and it cannot appoint a person as Public Prosecutor, if his name is not included in the panel. This reinforces my conclusion that is the matter of recommendation, the State Government has no role to play. It is also not as if the Law Secretary, who happens to be a Senior District Judge, wrote to the District Magistrate of his own on the basis of his personal knowledge. The letter clearly mentioned that he had been directed to seek the opinion of the District Magistrate with regard to the appointment of respondent No.5 as Public Prosecutor. The letter amounts to an unwarranted interference by the Law Secretary in the discharge of statutory duties by the District Magistrate under Sec. 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. The letter of the Law Secretary cannot be said to be an innocent proposal of the Law Secretary. In fact, the District Judge to whom a copy of the letter was endorsed understood what it meant. He Observed that he had no objection if the Government wanted to appoint him as Public Prosecutor. The significance of such communications must be understood not in the light of what they contain, but the effect that they have on persons who are required to act in furtherance thereto. Whereas the law provides that the State Government may appoint a Public Prosecutor from the panel prepared by the District Magistrate in accordance with Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24, the aforesaid letter of the Law Secretary was in effect an attempt to procure a recommendation which must be deprecated in the strongest terms. The office of Public Prosecutor must be offered to a deserving Advocate and shouldnt be procured by an Advocate. Political considerations and favouritism cannot be allowed to interfere with the statutory duty of the District Magistrate to prepare a panel of names of persons who in his opinion are fit for appointment. 14. Counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance upon judgment of this Court by a Division Bench (See Mohan Jee Upadhyay V/s. Stale of Bihar, wherein in similar circumstances a question arose before the court as to whether the recommendation made by the District-Magistrate was a valid recommendation having regard to the provision of Sec. 24 of the Code. 14. Counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance upon judgment of this Court by a Division Bench (See Mohan Jee Upadhyay V/s. Stale of Bihar, wherein in similar circumstances a question arose before the court as to whether the recommendation made by the District-Magistrate was a valid recommendation having regard to the provision of Sec. 24 of the Code. In that case it was found that the name of respondent No. 8 was included the list and recommended by the District Magistrate on extraneous consideration because the State Government imposed its preference in favour of respondent No.8 upon the statutory authorities. It was, therefore, held that such recommendation could not be said to be free from influence arid pressure of the State Government. In fact, the District Magistrate abdicated his independent assessment and was .forced to include the name of respondent No.8 in order to oblige the State Government. The Court took the view that the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge is required to prepare a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion, fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors. Such opinion, which is mandatory in nature, must be free from bias and influence. The opinion mentioned in Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Code must be free from any pressure or influence and such recommendation on the basis of the opinion of the authorities must be considered as statutory in nature. Therefore, no deviation to such mandatory provision can be permitted. This Court, therefore, held that the recommendation of the name of respondent No. 8 in the panel prepared by the District Magistrate was illegal and the respondents were restrained from considering the name of respondent No.8 on the basis of such recommendation. 15. The view that have taken is consistent with the law as declared by a Division Bench of this Court which is a binding precedent. 16. What, however, is significant is the fact that despite the letter of the Law Secretary, the District Judge did not recommend the name of respondent No.5 for appointment as Public Prosecutor. 15. The view that have taken is consistent with the law as declared by a Division Bench of this Court which is a binding precedent. 16. What, however, is significant is the fact that despite the letter of the Law Secretary, the District Judge did not recommend the name of respondent No.5 for appointment as Public Prosecutor. He made it clear that he had no occasion to watch the performance of respondent No.5 and without recommending his name for inclusion in the panel, he observed that he will have no objection if the Government wanted to appoint him as Public Prosecutor of the District Magistrate (Annexure-14) dated 14.4.1993 does not take the matter further. It was open to the District Magistrate to give his own opinion with regard to the fitness of respondent No.5 for appointment as Public Prosecutor, but he also did not recommend the name of respondent No.5 for inclusion in the panel He merely forwarded the letter received from the District & Sessions Judge, and agreed with him. In effect, even the District-Magistrate had no independent opinion to give with regard to respondent No.5 on the basis of his personal knowledge, and he merely endorsed the view of the District Judge that he had no objection to the appointment of respondent No.5 as a Public Prosecutor. He, therefore, did not make a recommended on the basis of his opinion as required by law. In my view, on a fair reading of the letter of the District and Sessions Judge (Annexure-13) dated 20th March, 1993 and of the District Magistrate (Annexure- 14) dated 14.4.1993, it cannot be said that the District Magistrate recommended the name of respondent No.5 for inclusion in the panel already submitted by him. Obviously, the District Magistrate had to prepare a panel of persons, who, in his opinion were fit to be or appointed Public Prosecutors. Since he agreed with the letter of the District and Sessions Judge, he could not express any opinion about respondent No. 5 and, therefore, could not have in eluded his name in the panel he statute requires d that only those persons must be included in the panel who in the opinion of the District Magistrate were fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor. The recommendation of a name by inclusion in the a panel is an affirmative act of the District Magistrate by which he conveys that in his opinion the person whose name is included in the panel is fit for appointment as Public Prosecutor. The negative act of saying that he had no objection to the appointment if the Government so desired, does 51 not amount to a recommendation by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions a Judge, nor does it amount to inclusion of the 11 name in the panel already suggested by him. The a inclusion of the name in the panel must be preceded by application of mind by the District Magistrate to relevant considerations for the formation of an opinion. This duty is cast upon the District Magistrate by law, and unless he says affirmatively that in his opinion the person concerned is fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor, his saying that he has no objection, does not amount to a recommendation, or even an exercise of authority under Sec. 24(4) of the Code. The attempt of the Law Secretary, therefore, to get a positive recommendation from the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions in Judge did not succeed, and from Annexures 13 and 14 it is crystal clear that neither the District and Sessions Judge nor the District Magistrate co recommended the name of respondent No.5 for inclusion in the panel because as I have held earlier the requirement of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 M are not met by saying that he had no objection to the appointment of a particular person, if the Government so desired. The subsection casts a duty upon him to affirmatively recommend by including in the panel persons who in his opinion, are fit for being appointed as Public Prosecutors. If the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge e had no opinion about an Advocate, since they had e no occasion to watch the performance of the said If Advocate, they could not have possibly recommended his name for inclusion in the panel In my view, therefore, the appointment of respondent No.5 by issuance of the letter (Annexure-2) is m breach of the mandatory provision-of Subsection (5) of Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the name of respondent No.5 was not included in the panel prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge, the State Government could not have appointed him as the Public Prosecutor. 17. Counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that deserving advocates may at times be missed by the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate. In such a case it may be open to any person to bring this fact to the notice of the Government. In such a situation if the State Government requires the District Magistrate to send his opinion about a particular person to the Government in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed It is not necessary for me to make any general observation with regard to such matters, because much will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In such cases it may, perhaps, be proper for the person concerned to bring this fact to the notice of the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate so that they may, if so advised, consider the case if such an Advocate and may ultimately include or not include his name in the panel. However, when such recommendation is called for from the District Magistrate by the Government it has a different effect, and tends to interfere with- the statutory duty of the District Magistrate under Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Code. In any event, in the instant case, I have come to the conclusion that despite the, letter of the Law Secretary, the Sessions Judge did not approve of the proposal, nor did the District Magistrate. Both of them simply stated that they did not know anything about the Advocate concerned, but had no objection if the State Government wanted to appoint him as Public Prosecutor. It cannot be said, therefore, that the District Magistrate purported to include his name in the panel on the basis of his opinion that the said Advocate was fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor, as is the requirement of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act. 18. This however, brings me to the question as to what relief should be granted in the instant Writ petition. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act. 18. This however, brings me to the question as to what relief should be granted in the instant Writ petition. Respondent No.5 has been appointed as Public Prosecutor for a term of three years, with effect from the date on which he assumed charge of his office as Public Prosecutor In-charge which was sometimes in the month of April, 1993. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that his term, therefore, will come to an end in or about April, 1996. He has, therefore, only about eight months left to complete his tenure. In these circumstances, it may not be proper: to quash his appointment. The submission appears to be attractive but ignores the realities. From our experience we can say that even after the expiry of the term for which the Public Prosecutor is appointed prompt steps are not taken to appoint a new Public Prosecutor, and sometimes the Public Prosecutor is permitted to continue for years together before a regular appointment is made. In the instant case itself the petitioner, who was appointed in the year 1985 for a term of three years continued till 24th April, 1993. It is, therefore, not known whether any Public Prosecutor will be appointed on the expiry of the term of respondent No.5 or whether he may be continued for several years thereafter. The impugned order was passed on 29th July, 1993, and the petitioner moved this Court on 30th August, 1993. The petitioner filed the writ petition promptly and cannot be said to be guilty of delay in moving this Court. 19. In these circumstances, therefore, I am left with no option but to quash the appointment of respondent No.5 as communicated by the letter (Annexure-2). However, in the larger interest of justice, so that the State has sufficient opportunity to appoint a Public Prosecutor in accordance with law, respondent No.5 is permitted to continue as Public Prosecutor for a period of three months. In the meantime, the State Government must take necessary steps, and appoint a Public Prosecutor in accordance with law. Respondent No.5 shall continue to function as Public Prosecutor for a period of three months or till such time the Public Prosecutor is appointed by the State Government, whichever is earlier. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.