JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Since, common question of law and fact are involved in these two writ petitions, hence are being taken up together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment. 3. Petitioner (Sri Ganga Singh Bafila) has filed these writ petitions for renewal of his term of appointment as District Government Counsel (Criminal) (hereinafter referred to as “D.G.C (Crl.)”) along with other reliefs. In Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2015 (M/S), he has also challenged the order of appointment and renewal passed by State Government in favour of Respondent No.3. From the pleadings, it is revealed that petitioner was appointed as D.G.C (Crl.) in District Pithoragarh in the year 1998 and his appointment was thereafter renewed from time to time in view of his work and conduct. State Government has issued executive orders regarding mode of appointment of State Law Officers including D.G.C (Crl.), and compilation of such executive orders is known as Legal Remembrancer’s Manual (hereinafter referred to as “L.R. Manual”). 4. Chapter VII of the L.R. Manual deals with District Government Counsel, their appointment and conditions of engagement. Para 7.03 of L.R. Manual lays down the procedure for selection for appointment on the post of D.G.C (Crl.), which is extracted below:- “7.03- Applications and qualifications–(1) Whenever the post of any of the Government Counsel in the district is likely to fall vacant within the next three months, or when a new post has been created, the District Officer concerned shall notify the vacancy to the members of the Bar. Members eligible for consideration would be those having at their credit a practice of ten years in case of District Government Counsel, seven years in case of Assistant District Government Counsel and five years in case of Sub- District Government Counsel. The District Officer shall ask those who want to be considered for appointment to a particular office to give their names to him with particulars such as age, length of practice at the Bar, proficiency in Hindi, Income-Tax paid by them on professional income during last three years and if not assessed the return submitted by them, if any, details of the work handled by them during the course of the preceding two years duly verified by court and whether they have practiced on criminal, civil and revenue side. (2) The District Government Counsel and Legal Practitioners of the neighboring districts may also send the above particulars for the post of District Government Counsel through their District Officers, who shall forward the same to the District Officer of the district in which the appointment is to be made, with such remarks as they deem fit. (3) The name so received shall be considered by the District Officer in consultation with the District Judge. The District Officer shall give due weight to the claim of the existing incumbents (Additional/Assistant District Government Counsel), if any, and shall submit confidentially in order of preference the names of the legal practitioners for each post to the Legal Rememberancer giving his own opinion particularly about his character, professional conduct and integrity and the opinion of the District Judge on the suitability and merits, of each candidate. While forwarding his recommendations to the Legal Remembrancer the district officer shall also send to him the bio-data submitted by other incumbents with such comments as he and the District Judge may like to make. In making the recommendations, the proficiency of the candidate in civil or criminal or revenue law, as the case may be, as well as in Hindi shall particularly be taken into consideration. Provided that, it will also be open to the District Officer to recommend the name of any person, who may be considered fit, even though he may not have formally supplied his bio-data for being considered for appointment. The willingness of such a person to accept the appointment, if made shall, however be obtained before his name is recommended.” 5. Para 7.06 (1) of L.R. Manual provides that the person finally selected shall be appointed as D.G.C. for one year. Para 7.06 (2) provides that if work and conduct of the person appointed as D.G.C. is found satisfactory in the first year of his appointment, then his term may be extended for a term not exceeding three years. Para 7.06 of the L.R. Manual is extracted below:- 7.06.-“Appointment and Renewal-(1) The legal practitioner finally selected by the Government may be appointed District Government Counsel for one year from the date of his taking over charge. Para 7.06 of the L.R. Manual is extracted below:- 7.06.-“Appointment and Renewal-(1) The legal practitioner finally selected by the Government may be appointed District Government Counsel for one year from the date of his taking over charge. (2) At the end of the aforesaid period, the District Officer after consulting the District Judge shall submit a report on his work and conduct to the legal remembrancer together with the statement of work done in Form no. 9. Should his work or conduct be found to be unsatisfactory, the matter shall be reported to the Government for orders. If the report in respect of his work and conduct is satisfactory, he may be furnished with a deed of engagement in Form no. 1 for a term not exceeding three years. On his first engagement a copy of Form no. 2 shall be supplied to him and he shall complete and return it to the Legal Remembrancer for record. (3) The appointment of any Legal Practitioner as a District Government Counsel is only professional engagement terminable at will on either side and is not appointment to a post under the Government. Accordingly the Government reserves a power to terminate the appointment of any District Government Counsel at any time without assigning any cause.” 6. According to the petitioner, term of his appointment as D.G.C (Crl.) was going to expire on 30.01.2015, therefore, District Magistrate, Pithoragarh issued one letter dated 17.12.014 asking the petitioner, if he is interested in renewal of his term. Petitioner not only expressed his willingness for renewal, but also supplied relevant information in Form No. 9. District Magistrate vide letter dated 06.01.2015 forwarded the documents received from all State Law Officers, including petitioner, to District Judge, Pithoragarh with a request to make appropriate recommendation regarding their renewal. District Judge strongly recommended for renewal of petitioner’s term in his letter dated 08.01.2015 and accordingly, the District Magistrate recommended for renewal of the term of the petitioner vide letter dated 14.01.2015. However, the State Government vide letter dated 24.02.2015 instructed the District Magistrate to submit fresh panel of legal practitioners in terms of para 7.03 of L.R. Manual. The decision taken by the State Government to invite fresh panel of names instead of renewing his term, was challenged by petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 2762 of 2015 (M/S). 7. However, the State Government vide letter dated 24.02.2015 instructed the District Magistrate to submit fresh panel of legal practitioners in terms of para 7.03 of L.R. Manual. The decision taken by the State Government to invite fresh panel of names instead of renewing his term, was challenged by petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 2762 of 2015 (M/S). 7. During the interregnum, State Government appointed Sri Chandra Ballabh Upreti as D.G.C (Crl.) for a term of one year, vide order dated 30.10.2015. This order of appointment was challenged by Sri Ganga Singh Bafila by filing Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2015 (M/S). During pendency of the said writ petition, appointment of Sri Chandra Ballabh Upreti was renewed vide order dated 27.10.2016, till he completes age of 62 years i.e. 11.06.2021. This renewal order has been challenged through an amendment in the writ petition. In view of subsequent development, Writ Petition No. 2762 of 2015 (M/S) earlier filed by him, has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. 8. As per the case set up in Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2015 (M/S), pursuant to State Government’s letter dated 24.02.2015, District Magistrate, Pithoragarh notified vacancy on the post of D.G.C (Crl.) and invited fresh applications vide letter dated 16.03.2015. As many as eleven Legal Practitioners responded to the said notification. District Magistrate vide letter dated 09.04.2015 forwarded all the applications, so received, to the District Judge to examine their suitability for the post of D.G.C (Crl.) and prepare a panel in order of preference. The District Judge constituted a Committee of three Judicial Officers for assisting him and based on report of the Committee, District Judge prepared a panel of two Legal Practitioners, in which petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 while one Sri A.K. Bohra was placed at Serial No. 2. Accordingly, District Magistrate, Pithoragarh sent panel of two names and petitioner was on top of the said panel. Sri Chandra Ballabh Upreti who was ultimately appointed as D.G.C (Crl.) by the State Government vide order dated 30.10.2015, was not empanelled by the District Judge or by the District Magistrate. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Sri Chandra Ballabh Upreti who was ultimately appointed as D.G.C (Crl.) by the State Government vide order dated 30.10.2015, was not empanelled by the District Judge or by the District Magistrate. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 has held in para 4 of the judgment that the post of District Government Counsel (Crl.) is deemed to be that of Public Prosecutor within the meaning of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are statutory in nature govern the field whereas the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual is merely a compilation of executive orders and is not a ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, any appointment to the said post has to be made in conformity with the procedure laid down in Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As a corollary, L.R. Manual will have to give way to the provisions contained in Cr.P.C. Executive instructions can supplement, but not supplant the law. 10. Since, we are concerned with appointment to the post of D.G.C (Crl.)/Public Prosecutor for the District, therefore, relevant provisions contained in Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure are extracted below:- Section 24(3)-“For every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. Provided that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may be appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, for another district. (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-Section (4). (6)-Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(5), where in a State there exists a regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting such Cadre. (6)-Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(5), where in a State there exists a regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting such Cadre. Provided that where, in the opinion of the State Government, no suitable person is available in such Cadre for such appointment that Government may appoint a person as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, from the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4).” 11. From the aforesaid provisions of code of Criminal Procedure, it is apparent that panel of names of persons for appointment as Public Prosecutor has to be prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge of the District. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Johri Mal (supra), “the consultation with the District Judge must be an effective one. The District Judge in turn would be well advised to take his colleagues into confidence, so that only meritorious and competent persons who can maintain the standard of public office can be found out.” 12. Section 24(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure restricts the power of the State Government by providing that a person whose name is not included in the panel prepared by the District Magistrate under Section 24(4) cannot be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district. It is settled position in law that if the statute provides for doing a particular act in a specified manner, it has got to be done in that manner alone, and not in any other manner. In the face of Section 24(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not open to the State Government to appoint someone, whose name is not included in the panel prepared by the District Magistrate, in consultation with the Sessions Judge of the district. 13. Appointment of respondent No. 3 has been challenged on the ground that it violates Section 24(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Explanation for appointing respondent No. 3 as D.G.C. (Crl.) has been given in para 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, which is extracted below:- “That in the petitioner’s case, District Magistrate had sent list of 11 Advocates along with the opinion of the District Judge. Explanation for appointing respondent No. 3 as D.G.C. (Crl.) has been given in para 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, which is extracted below:- “That in the petitioner’s case, District Magistrate had sent list of 11 Advocates along with the opinion of the District Judge. District Judge did not give any negative report about Sri Chandra Ballabh Upreti. File was put up before Hon’ble Chief Minister along with the recommendation and the list of Advocates sent by District Magistrate. Hon’ble Chief Minister chose the name of Sri Chandra Ballabh Upreti from list sent by District Magistrate.” 14. District Magistrate, Pithoragarh in para 6 of his counter affidavit has stated that “State Government can appoint the District Government Advocate as per its own choice, therefore, the State Government had not renewed the engagement of the petitioner inasmuch as the renewal of any Government Advocate is the jurisdiction of the State Government.” 15. Respondent No. 3 in para 10 of his counter affidavit has attempted to defend his appointment as D.G.C.(Crl.) in the following words:- “That the contents of para No. 12 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated therein. It is stated that answering respondent was also one of the applicant for the post of D.G.C. (Crl.) but his application was not considered by the respondent without any valid reason. It is further stated that the L.R. Manual has no statuary force and non compliance of the said L.R. Manual will not make out a case to interfere by this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 30.10.2015 is legally justified.” 16. Sri Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel contends that the Principal Secretary, Law / Legal Remembrancer vide letter dated 24.02.2015 had directed District Magistrate, Pithoragarh to prepare a panel of three Legal Practitioners in terms of para 7.03 of L.R. Manual and send the same to the State Government along with opinion of District Judge, however, the District Magistrate acted contrary to the directive issued by the State Government by sending a panel containing only two names. He further submits that five candidates, including respondent No. 3, were erroneously held to be ineligible by the District Judge only on the ground that there is no evidence that they are income tax payee, although, the two empanelled candidates also had not produced their income tax return, as is apparent from the report submitted by District Judge on 07.08.2015. Therefore, according to him, State Government was justified in appointing Respondent No. 3, who although not empanelled, was one of the applicants. 17. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 adopts the argument made by learned Chief Standing Counsel. The argument made by learned Chief Standing Counsel may look attractive on a first blush, but on a keener scrutiny, it does not deserve acceptance. In the present case, this Court is required to examine validity of decision taken by the State Government, therefore, the action of the District Judge and District Magistrate is not in issue. Appointment of D.G.C. (Crl.)/Public Prosecutor is governed by Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, the decision of the State Government has to be tested on the touchstone of Section 24(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Mistake, if any, committed by District Judge or District Magistrate, while preparing the panel, cannot be a justification for the State Government to act contrary to the statute. Two wrongs do not make a right. It was open to the State Government to ask for fresh panel in terms of the statute, however, the course of action adopted by the State Government is contrary to law, therefore, unsustainable. 18. As discussed above, a candidate, whose name is not included in the panel prepared under Section 24(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be appointed as Public Prosecutor. Appointment of such person as Public Prosecutor/D.G.C.(Crl.) will fall foul on Section 24(4) as it will amount to acting contrary to the view expressed by the District Judge. The District Judge is supposed to know the merit, competence and capability of a Lawyer, therefore, his opinion cannot be casually brushed aside. Respondent No. 3 was one of the applicants but the Sessions Judge had not found him suitable to be included in the panel. The State Government has not indicated any reason for disagreement with the view taken by the Sessions Judge. Respondent No. 3 was one of the applicants but the Sessions Judge had not found him suitable to be included in the panel. The State Government has not indicated any reason for disagreement with the view taken by the Sessions Judge. No explanation has been offered for ignoring the panel prepared by District Magistrate in consultation with the District Judge, or for appointing someone who was not included in the panel. 19. Since, the field is occupied by statute, therefore, it is not open for the State Government to act contrary to the statute. Undisputedly, respondent No. 3 was not included in the panel prepared under Section 24(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, his appointment as D.G.C.(Crl.) is hit by Section 24(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such view of the matter, the appointment of respondent No. 3 made vide order dated 30.10.2015 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said order deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Since, appointment of respondent No. 3 as D.G.C.(Crl.) is contrary to Section 24(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, renewal of his appointment in terms of para 7.06 (2) of L.R. Manual cannot cure the illegality committed while appointing him. Therefore, the order dated 27.10.2016 whereby appointment of respondent No. 3 was renewed upto 11.06.2021, is also liable to quashed and is hereby quashed. 20. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2015 (M/S) is allowed. In view of important role played by D.G.C.(Crl.) in administration of justice, it is imperative to make appointment on the post of D.G.C.(Crl.) at the earliest. Therefore, the State Government is directed to initiate process for appointment of D.G.C.(Crl.) in district Pithoragarh, as early as possible, but not later than fifteen days from today. The selection process shall be completed and new incumbent shall be appointed, as D.G.C.(Crl.) on or before 20.02.2018. It shall be open for the State Government to make necessary arrangement in public interest till fresh appointment, on the post in question. 21. No order as to cost.