Judgment :- A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of : "(i) a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, direction or order ousting the 6th respondent from the office of the Public Prosecutor and respondents 7 to 11 from the office of Additional Public Prosecutor for Thiruvananthapuram District; (ii) Such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case." 2. The 6th respondent was appointed as Public Prosecutor and respondents 7 to 11 as Additional Public Prosecutors for Thiruvananthapuram District. None of them is now functioning as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor; many have resigned and the service of the others were terminated by the Government. 3. The appointments were made by the Government under Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code and rule 8 of the Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules'). The above provisions prescribe that the appointment shall be made by the Government from out of the panel submitted by the District Magistrate of the District in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge. 4. It is, inter alia, contained in the petition that there are many in the bar who are more suitable than those appointed, willing to accept the appointment as Public Prosecutor or Additional Prosecutor. The main ground urged is that the District and Sessions Judge invited applications from Advocates who are desirous of being appointed as Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutor, and that contravenes rule 36 of the Bar Council of the India Rules and rule 8 of the Rules. This allegation is controverted in the counter affidavit filed by the Government. But the counter affidavit would maintain that even if applications were invited, there was nothing irregular or illegal in that, as it was necessary to ascertain the willingness of the Advocate concerned and also their bio data. 5. The file relating to the appointments in question was placed before me for perusal. In the file, there is nothing to indicate that the District and Sessions Judge invited applications which may go counter to rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. 5. The file relating to the appointments in question was placed before me for perusal. In the file, there is nothing to indicate that the District and Sessions Judge invited applications which may go counter to rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. It is submitted at the bar that the District and Sessions Judge approached the Bar Association to ascertain the bio data, to assess the suitability of some of the Advocates to be recommended for appointment and also to ascertain the willingness of those Advocates, and that does not in any way contravene Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules or the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules. 6. The prayer in the Original Petition is to issue a writ of quo warranto so that respondents 6 to 11 do not function as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors. Now none of them is functioning as such. As mentioned earlier, many have resigned and services of one or two terminated by the Government. Thus, the prayer in the petition has become infructuous. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a decision on the propriety of inviting application may be rendered, so that at least in future, such irregularity or illegality is not committed by the Authorities concerned. To support the argument that inviting applications is improper and irregular, the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Krishna Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1992) 2 Andh LT (NRC) 35 was relied on. The short note report is in the following terms : "The provisions of S. 24 do not prescribe that the District and Sessions Judge should notify to the Bar Associations and receive bio-data or application from Advocates who are desirous of being included in the panel for appointment of Public Prosecutor. It would not be proper for the District and Sessions Judge to issue notification inviting bio-data from the Advocates for consideration of being included in the panel for the appointment of Public Prosecutor. That would indirectly amount to asking the Advocates to solicit work from the State. It would not be proper for the District and Sessions Judge to issue notification inviting bio-data from the Advocates for consideration of being included in the panel for the appointment of Public Prosecutor. That would indirectly amount to asking the Advocates to solicit work from the State. The proper procedure would be for the District and Sessions Judges to obtain bio-data from such of the Advocates whom they can consider to be fit for appointment as Public Prosecutor and send a panel of eligible candidates on that basis rather than call for bio-data from all Advocates having particular standing." 8. It is true that rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules prohibits the Advocates from soliciting work or advertise directly or indirectly, etc. Making an application in response to a notification issued by the District and Sessions Judge may amount to solict work. But the District and Sessions Judge collecting bio data of Advocates for assessing their suitability for appointment as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor and also to ascertain the willingness of those Advocates to accept the appointment, cannot be faulted as contravening rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules or the relevant provisions of the Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 1978 or Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For ascertaining the willingness of Advocates whom the District and Sessions Judge proposes to recommend, he has to approach the Advocates concerned and for getting the bio-data also, a similar course is to be taken. Those data could be collected either directly from individual advocates or from the President or Secretary or other office-bearers of the Bar Association so that the District and Sessions Judge when he was consulted by the District Magistrate, can give his opinion as to the suitability for appointment of any particular Advocate. It is certainly open to the District and Sessions Judge to adopt such a course. But it shall not directly or indirectly make the Advocate to solicit work. 9. The prayers in the Original Petition, as mentioned earlier, have become infructuous. In the circumstances, with the above observations, the Original Petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.