ORDER By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring G.O.Rt. No.1842, Law (LA & J Courts A2) Department, dated 28-10-2005, issued by respondent No.1Government, as illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of Section 24 Cr.P.C. and the Instructions issued by respondent No.1-Government in G.O.Ms. No.187, dated 6-12-2000, and to consequently direct respondent No.1-Government to consider the name of one of the Advocates for appointment to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, from the panel sent by respondent No.3-Additional District Judge, and pass such other order or orders, as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is an Advocate practising in the Courts at Hindupur, and claims to have a standing of about 12 years. Pursuant to expiry of the term of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, the petitioner states that respondent No.2-District Magistrate requested respondent No.3-Additional District Judge, to send a panel of six Advocates for appointment to the said post. Accordingly, respondent No.3-Additional District Judge, sent the panel of Advocates to respondent No.2-District Magistrate, in which the petitioner's name was shown at SI. No.4, While so, the petitioner states that respondent No.2-District Magistrate, included the names of two Advocates in the said panel, namely that of respondent No.4 and one other Advocate on 19-7-2005, and requested respondent No.1-Government to appoint an Advocate from among the panel of eight Advocates to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1-Government, issued orders in G.O.Rt. No.1842, Law (LA & J Courts A2) Department, dated 28-10-2005, appointed respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor for a period of three years. Impugning the said G.O. issued by respondent No.1-Government, appointing respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of respondent No.4 was not recommended and included in the panel of names sent by respondent No.3 District Judge to respondent No.2-District Magistrate, for appointment to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of respondent No.4 was not recommended and included in the panel of names sent by respondent No.3 District Judge to respondent No.2-District Magistrate, for appointment to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. However, respondent No.2-District Collector upon receiving the panel of names recommended by respondent No.3-District Judge, respondent No.2-District Magistrate, without consulting respondent No.3-District Judge, included the names of respondent No.4 and another in the said panel, and sent the said panel of names to the respondent No.1 Government for appointment. Respondent No.1-Government, considering the said panel, issued orders in G.O.Rt. No.1842, Law (LA & J Courts A2) Department, dated 28-10-2005, appointing respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor. He submits since the name of respondent No.4 was included by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, in the panel of names recommended by respondent No.3-District Judge, without consulting him, as is required under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Instructions issued by respondent No.1-Government in G.O.Ms. No.187, dated 6-12-2000, respondent No.4 could not have been appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor, and as such, the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government appointing respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor, is liable to be set aside. 4. Respondent No.1 filed counter on his behalf and on behalf of respondent No.2. The learned Government Pleader for Home, reiterating the counter averments submitted that respondent No.3-District Judge vide proceedings dated 28-4-2005 furnished a panel consisting of six names for appointment to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. Pursuant thereto, some Advocates, made representation to respondent No.2-District Magistrate, to include their names in the panel, and the same having been forwarded to respondent No.3-District Judge, was rejected vide proceedings dated 12-5-2005 as already the panel was sent. Thereafter, respondent No.2-District Magistrate, included the names of respondent No.4 and another in the panel recommended by respondent No.3District Judge, and sent their antecedents to respondent No.1-Government, and respondent No.1-Government, having considered the antecedents of respondent No.4 and other, appointed respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor, and as such, no exception can be taken thereto. 5. Respondent No.4 did not file any counter. However, the counsel appearing on his behalf adopted the arguments of the learned Government Pleader for Home. 5. Respondent No.4 did not file any counter. However, the counsel appearing on his behalf adopted the arguments of the learned Government Pleader for Home. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1156 of 2005, dated 4-10-2005 and judgment of a learned single Judge reported in K.A. Padmanabham v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the learned counsel contended that it is for the appointing authority to choose one of the Advocates from the panel of names for appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor, and no Advocate as a matter of right can claim to be appointed as such. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the file relating to the impugned appointment produced by the official respondents. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent No.3-District Judge, vide proceedings dated 28-4-2005, sent a panel of names of six advocates for appointment to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. In the said panel, the name of respondent No.4 is not found. It appears that on the representation made by respondent No.4 and one other Advocate, respondent No.2-District Magistrate, vide proceedings dated 5-5-2005 forwarded the representations made by them to respondent No.3-District Judge, for considering inclusion of their names in the panel. However, respondent No.3-District Judge, vide proceedings dated 12-5-2005 informed respondent No.2-District Magistrate that since the panel had already been sent and also communicated to the High Court, the request for inclusion of the names of respondent No.4 and another Advocate cannot be considered. Even though the name of respondent No.4 and another Advocate, was refused to be included in the panel of names by respondent No.3-District Judge, yet respondent No.2-District Magistrate, vide proceedings dated 19-7-2005, had included the names of respondent No.4 and another Advocate in the panel of names recommended by respondent No.3-District Judge, and along with their antecedents, sent by the Superintendent of Police, vide proceedings dated 18-6-2005, and sent them to respondent No.1-Government, for consideration. Respondent No.1-Government considering the antecedents of all the eight Advocates, issued orders in G.O.Rt. No..1842, Law (LA & J Courts A2) Department, dated 28-10-2005, appointing respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Respondent No.1-Government considering the antecedents of all the eight Advocates, issued orders in G.O.Rt. No..1842, Law (LA & J Courts A2) Department, dated 28-10-2005, appointing respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. From the narration of the undisputed facts as is reflected from the material produced by the official respondents, it is clear that the name of respondent No.4 was not recommended by respondent No.3-District Judge in his proceedings 28-4-2005, and the request of respondent No.2-District Magistrate, for inclusion of his name in the panel was refused by respondent NO.3-District Judge, vide his proceedings dated 12-5-2005. Despite refusal by respondent NO.3-District Judge to recommend the name of respondent No.4 and another Advocate, yet respondent No.2-District Magistrate, had included the name of respondent No.4 in the panel sent by respondent NO.3-District Judge, and sent them to respondent No.1-Government. 9. The appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors to the concerned Courts is governed by the procedure prescribed in Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per the said provision, 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. The Government issued instructions in G.O.Ms. No.187, dated 6-12-2000 dealing with Appointment and Service Conditions of Law Officers. Clause 5 (1) thereof, which reiterates the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that the appointment of Law Officers in all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to the High Court shall be made on the basis of the recommendations of the District Collector concerned who shall ascertain the views of the concerned District and Sessions Judge before making the recommendations. 10. Thus, from the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.187, dated 6-12-2000, in particular Clause 5 (1) thereof, it becomes clear that the District Magistrate shall in consultation with the District Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who in his opinion, are fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors. No.187, dated 6-12-2000, in particular Clause 5 (1) thereof, it becomes clear that the District Magistrate shall in consultation with the District Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who in his opinion, are fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors. This Court in W.P. Nos.21851 and 26699 of 2007, dated 8-2-20081-A, elaborately considered the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,' 1973 that governs the procedure for appointment of Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors, and held that in the matter of making appointments to the posts of Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors, the procedure as contemplated under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly sub-sections (4) and (5) thereof, has to be followed in letter in spirit. 11. In the instant case, despite the name of respondent No.4 having been refused to be included in the panel by respondent No.3 District Judge, yet respondent No.2-District Magistrate had included his name in the panel and recommended his case along with others for appointment to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. Inasmuch as, the inclusion of name of respondent No.4 in the panel having been negatived by respondent No.3District Judge, in the recommendation of his name by respondent No.2-District Magistrate to respondent No.1-Government, it should be held that there was no consultation of respondent No.3-District Judge by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, as was required under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.187, dated 6-12-2000, and such recommendation made by respondent No.2District Magistrate, being violative of the statutory provisions, cannot be sustained. 12. The fact that the Government in the matter of making of appointments to the District Government Counsel, should give primacy to the opinion of the District Judge, for it ensures fairness in action, was highlighted by the apex Court in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal as follows: While making appointments of District Govt. Counsel, the State should give primacy to the opinion of the District Judge. Such a course of action would demonstrate fairness and reasonableness of action and, District Judge, to a large extent the action of the State would not be dubbed as politically motivated or otherwise arbitrary. Counsel, the State should give primacy to the opinion of the District Judge. Such a course of action would demonstrate fairness and reasonableness of action and, District Judge, to a large extent the action of the State would not be dubbed as politically motivated or otherwise arbitrary. The State of Uttar Pradesh alone had amended sub-sec.(1) of Sec.24 and deleted sub-secs.(3) and (4) and (5) of Sec.24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Evidently, the said legislative step had been taken to overcome the decision of Supreme Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.3. There is no rationale in the said action because a law cannot be substituted by executive instructions contained in Manual which may be subjected to administrative vagaries. There does not exist any rationale behind deletion of the provision relating to consultation with the High Court in the matter of appointment of the Public Prosecutors in the High Court. The said provision being a salutary one, it is expected that the State of U.P. either would suitably amend the same or despite deletion shall consult the High Court with a view to ensure fairness in action. 13. So, from the law as laid down by the apex Court in the above judgment, it becomes clear that in the matter of making appointments to the posts of District Government Counsel/Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors, the State should give primacy to the opinion of the District Judge, and more particularly to ensure that there is fairness and reasonableness in the making of such appointments by the State. 14. The learned counsel for respondent No.4, as stated above, placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1156 of 2005, dated 4-10-2005 and judgment of a learned single Judge reported in K.A. Padmanabham v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1 supra); in support of his contention that it is for the Government to appoint Advocates for appearing on its behalf before the Courts, and that no Advocate as a matter of right can claim appointment as such. There can be no quarrel on this proposition of law as laid down by this Court in the said judgment. There can be no quarrel on this proposition of law as laid down by this Court in the said judgment. But in the instant case, as stated above, the petitioner is not claiming appointment as a matter of right, but he has pointed out the illegality committed by respondent No.2- District Magistrate, in that, the manner in which, he included the name of respondent No.4, despite respondent No.3-District Judge, refusing to include his name in the panel, and after including his name in the panel, then recommending to respondent No.1Government to consider the name of the Advocates mentioned therein for appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor. 15. Since in the matter of appointment of respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor, there was no consultation made by respondent No.2-District Magistrate with respondent No.3-District Judge, as is required under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for recommending the panel of names for appointing as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors, the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government, appointing respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor, based on the illegal recommendation made by respondent No.2, being in sheer violation of the provisions of Section 24 (4) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot be sustained. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, and it is accordingly allowed. The orders issued by respondent No.1Government in G.O.Rt. No.1842, Law (LA & J Courts A2) Department, dated 28-10-2005, appointing respondent No.4 as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur (sic. Hindupur), are set aside. No costs.ss