Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Radha Krishna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 November, 2019
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.17883 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:
"pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action things and deeds of Respondents in issuing the Radio Message in ZNR 142 G R1000 REG No 465 28 dated 14.10.2019 by 2nd Respondent in appointing the 4th Respondent as incharge as Additional Public Prosecutor for IX Additional District and Sessions Judges Court Krishna Machilipatnam by removing the Petitioner from the post of Additional Public Prosecutor which is illegal irregular Arbitrary against to the Principles of Natural Justice contra to the true spirit of Section 24 of Cr.P.C as well as contra to the Rules framed under The A P Law Appointments and Conditions of Courts Instructions 2000 in G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 06.12.2000 and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioners services as Additional Public Prosecutor for IX Additional District and Sessions Judges Court Krishna Machilipatnam"
During hearing, learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that, in similar circumstances this Court passed an order in W.P.No.17283 of 2019 on 05.11.2019, the operative portion of which is as follows and requested to pass similar order.
"As seen from the orders of extension, the tenure of the petitioners as Additional Public Prosecutors was extended by a further period of three months only. But, after completion of three months only, the Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada, issued radio message by arranging the in-charge Prosecuting Officers to take charge of the office of Additional Public Prosecutors. The basis for issue of such memo is the executive instructions issued by the Government. However, learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrated that appointment for the cadre of Public Prosecutor who are discharging their duties in various courts referred above, will seriously affect the interest of the victims and accused also. Therefore, appointment of the cadre Public Prosecutor or placing them as in-charge is prejudicial to the interest of public at large and that the petitioners are not concerned about their period of tenure as Additional Public Prosecutors, but more concerned about the interest of the MSM,J WP_17883_2019 2 public at large. If the petitioners are questioning the appointment on the ground that such in- charge arrangement would seriously affect the interest of the public at large, the remedy is elsewhere, but not before this Court, when the injury to the public is apprehended injury is challenged, the petitioners have to file public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any view of the matter, three months period is completed by the date of issuing order by Respondent No.2/Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to continue in their respective posts as Additional Public Prosecutors.
Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, earlier, this Court set-aside the order passed by the Director of Prosecutions in W.P.No.16543 of 2019 dated 30.10.2019. But, the same cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, for the reason that, in earlier W.P.No.16543 of 2019 dated 30.10.2019, the facts of the case are distinguishable from the facts in the above judgment, for the reason that, extension of tenure of Additional Public Prosecutors in W.P.No.16543 of 2019 was until further orders or till appointment of regular Public Prosecutors. But, here, the petitioners' services as Additional Public Prosecutors were extended for limited purpose of three months. That too, the order was passed only after completion of three months time. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, as the term of Additional Public Prosecutors was already expired and the petitioners are not entitled to claim any right to continue in the office and they cannot challenge the orders before this Court without invoking pro bono public jurisdiction of a competent court, on the ground that this order is prejudicial to the interest of victims and accused in many cases. Hence, I find no merit in this writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed."
Let there be a similar order even in this case also. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:12.11.2019 sp