I. VENKATANARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) ALL the petitioners are practicing advocates in twin cities and they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india questioning the process of selection for appointment to the posts of Public prosecutors and Additional Public prosecutors in Metropolitan Sessions Courts in Hyderabad as illegal and not in accordance with law. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix leading to filing of this writ petition is stated in a nutshell as under: The first respondent by his proceedings No. B6/2485/99, dated 30-10-2000 requested the Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad to furnish five panels each consisting of five advocates along with their Bio-data particulars for appointment to the posts of Public prosecutors and Additional Public prosecutors in the Courts of Metropolitan sessions Judges. It would appear that on receipt of the request of the Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the first and third Metropolitan Sessions Judges, hyderabad put up notice in the Bar association of Metropolitan Criminal Courts and also in the notice board of the respective courts inviting applications from the advocates, who have been in practice for not less than seven years and who intend to seek appointment for the post of Additional public Prosecutors in the respective Courts. It is also stated that Second and Fourth additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge courts have not issued any notification inviting applications, however, the advocates have submitted their applications along with their Bio-data particulars. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the calling of applications, names of the advocates were forwarded in the panels to be considered for appointment to the posts of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public prosecutors in the Courts of Metropolitan sessions Judges. ( 3 ) SRI K. G, Kannabhiram, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the procedure adopted for inviting the applications from the advocates by affixing a notice in the notice board. It is contended that such procedure inviting applications to solicit the post of Public prosecutors and Additional Public prosecutors is contrary to the professional ethics of the advocacy and such notification in the notice board is contrary to the Bar council Rules. In short, the learned senior counsel submits that the concerned Sessions judge or the Metropolitan Sessions Judge as the case may be, should strictly follow the procedure laid down in Section 24 of the cr. In short, the learned senior counsel submits that the concerned Sessions judge or the Metropolitan Sessions Judge as the case may be, should strictly follow the procedure laid down in Section 24 of the cr. PC and the A. P. Law Officers (Recruitment Conditions of Service and remuneration) Rules, 1967. The submissions of the petitioners are that the concerned sessions Judge has to assess the respective merit and suitability of the candidates of the members of the Bar whom he think are fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor and has to send a panel of eligible candidates rather than calling the Bio-data particulars from the advocates having a particular standing. ( 4 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded respondents-advocates sought to justify the procedure adopted by the respective Metropolitan Sessions Judges. The learned Counsel contended that the presiding Officer may not be in a position to know the individual merits of the advocates since all the advocates would not appear in the criminal matter. It is further contended that by calling the applications by affixing a notice on the notice board, no injustice is caused. ( 5 ) SRI B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the another set of impleaded respondents-advocates submits that the date of impugned notification is 15-12-2000 and the writ petitioners have chosen to file the present writ petition in the month of April, 2001 and hence it shows lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Home submits that as per Section 24 (4) of the Cr. PC person fit to be appointed will be decided by the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. Though the applications are called by the concerned District magistrate or the Sessions Judge, ultimately, it is the privilege of the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge to a select a candidate, whom they think fit and eligible to hold such a post. Calling applications by affixing a notice in the notice board will not violate the provisions of Section 24 of the cr. PC. Calling applications by affixing a notice in the notice board will not violate the provisions of Section 24 of the cr. PC. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the rival submissions of the learned Counsel of both sides, the only question falls for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the respective Metropolitan Sessions Judges in calling the applications from the advocates by affixing notice in the notice board is in accordance with the procedure established by law. ( 8 ) A Division Bench of this Court in V. Kishore Kumar v. State of A. P. 1991 (II) alt 589 (DB), had an occasion to consider the issue whether it is proper for the District and Sessions Judges to call for the applications and Bio-data from the advocates having particular standing for appointment to the posts of Public prosecutors and Additional Public prosecutors. While so, the Division Bench took a view that by calling applications and bio-data from all the advocates would amount to contravening the provisions of section 24 of the Cr. PC and such practice of issuing notices inviting applications and bio-data from all advocates for consideration to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or additional Public Prosecutor has to be deprecated. The Division Bench expressed that such practice would indirectly amount to asking the advocates to solicit work from the State. Holding so, the Division Bench observed as follows: "in our view, the provisions of Section 24 do not prescribe that the District and sessions Judge should notify to the Bar association and receive Bio-data or applications from advocates who are desirous of being included in the panel for the appointment of Public Prosecutor. No doubt, in practice, it appears to us, that several District and Sessions Judges are issuing notifications calling upon advocates with particular standing to submit their Bio-data for being considered for inclusion in the panel of names for appointment as Public Prosecutors, In our view, such practice has to be deprecated not only because it is not sanctioned by Section 24 but also because for appointment of a professional person for rendering service to the State, no advocate can, under the rules made under section 49 (l) (c) of the Advocates act, 1961 by the Bar Council of India, apply for appointment or solicit work. Rule 36 of the rules framed by the Bar council clearly states that an advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circular, advertisements, touts, personal communications etc. It has also been held by Chinnappa Reddy, J. (as he then was) in Krishnavataram v. The State of a. P. , 1969 (2) APLJ 352. "now, a Public Prosecutor is appointed by the Government in exercise of powers under Section 492 of the Criminal procedure Code. The choice is that of the Government and none can claim a right to be appointed. That must necessarily be so because it is a position of great trust and confidence. "in that context, it would not be proper for the District and Sessions Judges 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 in our opinion, would be for the District and Sessions Judges to obtain Bio-data from such of the advocates whom they consider to be fit for appointment as Public Prosecutor and sent a panel of eligible candidates on that basis rather than call for Bio-data from all advocates having a particular standing. " ( 9 ) FOLLOWING the above decision of the Division Bench, there shall be a declaration that the procedure adopted by the respondents is not in accordance with section 24 Cr. PC and, therefore, the same is set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to follow the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Cr. PC and a. P. Law Officers (Recruitment conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1967. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.