ORDER
Goda Raghuram, J
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9-4-1999 dismissing the Writ Petition No.369 of 1997. The writ petitioner is the appellant.
2. The appellant was appointed by the proceedings of the State Government dated 29-2-1996 as the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of II Addilional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, for a period of 3 years. Challenging the said proceedings, an Advocate practising at Vijayawada Bar and the previous incumbent of the post of Addl. Public Prosecutor, filed WP 6353 of 1996. The said writ petition was allowed by the judgment dated ! 8-9-1996 on the ground that the panel has been prepared by (he District Collector, Krishna, in consultation with the Sessions Judge and not with the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. By the said judgment the existing arrangement was directed to be continued for a period of two months while directing the Government to make appointment in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby the appellant herein filed WA 1271 of 1996. On an analysis of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), in particular the provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 24 thereof, the Division Bench, by its judgment dated 6-12-1996, affirmed the judgment under appeal. The Division Bench, in brief, held as under :
(a) In the appointment of a Public Prosecutor of Addl. Public Prosecutor for a District, the provisions of Section 24 of the Code have to be complied with and any breach of the provisions would vitiate the orders of appointment.
(b) Section 24(4) of the Code ordains that the District Magistrate shall consult the Sessions Judge of the District while preparing a panel of names of persons for appointment as Public Prosecutors or Addl. Public Prosecutors of the District.
(c) As per sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the Code no person shall be appointed by the State Government as Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor for the District until his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code.
(d) Consequent on the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 7 of the Code every Metropolitan area in the State is a separate Sessions Division and District and the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, is, in the circumstances, the “Sessions Judge”, within the meaning of subsection (4) of Section 24 of the Code for the purpose of being consulted while preparing a panel for the post of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Court of Addl. District Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
(e) Provisions of Section 24 of the Code have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 7 of the Code and consequently for appointment to the post ofAdditional Public Prosecutor for the Metropolitan Area, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge is the Judge to be consulted in accordance with the mandate of subsection (4) of Section 24 of the Code.
(f) In the absence of material on record to show whether the District Collector, Krishna or the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, is the District Magistrate for Vijayawada Metropolitan area, it is not possible to determine and adjudicate the question whether panel sent by the District Collector as the District Magistrate is valid or otherwise.
3. For the aforementioned reasons the Division Bench affirmed the judgment under appeal and a consequential direction was issued that a fresh pane! should be called for from the concerned District Magistrate of the Metropolitan area of Vijayawada, who should send it after consultation with the Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cutn-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, and that the said exercise be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment Learned Division Bench also ordained that until fresh appointment is made the present arrangement shall continue.
4. In G.O. Rt. No.37, Home (Courts-C) Dept, dated 6-1-1997, the 5th respondent herein was appointed by the State Government as the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge of the post. Assailing the same Writ Petition No.369/97 has been filed by Mr. Sitrapaneni Ramprasad, an advocate of Vijayawada, who was earlier appointed as Addl. Public Prosecutor, which appointment stood invalidated by the proceedings of this Court referred to earlier. The said individual, despite invalidation of the orders of his appointment, continued to hold the office consequent upon the orders of this Court in the earlier proceedings that the then present arrangements continue. In the writ petition the validity of G.O. Rt. No.37, dated 6-1-1997, is assailed on two grounds :
(i) that the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, having been appointed as the Additional District Magistrate in relation to Metropolitan Area of Vijayawada w.e.f. 20-5-1989, by the State Government’s proceedings in G.O. Ms. No.284, dated 20-5-1989, with the mandate that he shall have all the powers of District Magistrate under the Code and other laws for the time being in force along is entitled and has
jurisdiction to send up the panel of names for appointment to the post of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, and the panel of names having been sent not by the Commissioner of Police but by the District Collector, Krishna District, the panel is invalid; and
(ii) that the District Collector having sent up the panel of names in consultation with the Sessions Judge, Krishna, who in turn consulted with III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for A.C.B. Cases, Vijayawada, who was functioning at that time as in-charge of the Court of the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, (in view of the incumbent of the later post proceeding on a week’s leave), the panel is invalid and consequently the appointment of 5th respondent herein founded on such illegal panel is vitiated and in-operative.
5. By way of interim relief the writ petitioner sought suspension of the operation of G.O. Rt. No.37, dated 6-1-1997 (appointing 5th respondent) on the pleaded reasons that the writ petitioner was continuing as Addl. Public Prosecutor pursuant to the writ appeal judgment of this Court dated 6-12-1996. By an interim order dated 20-1-1997 in WP MPNo.404 of 1997, the following order was passed:
“The learned Government Pleader for Home brought record and argued on instructions. The impugned order reads as if the 5th respondent has been appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor only for the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and that the said appointment does not include the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. However, the learned Government Pleader for Home says that the
appointment also includes the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. If that is the case, then there seems to be violation of the order of this Court in WA No.1271 of 1996 dated 6-12-1996. There shall, therefore, be a direction to the 5th respondent to take the files from the petitioner pertaining to the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada only. The petitioner sliall continue as the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge and shall retain the files with regard to the said Court until further orders.”
6. Consequently the petitioner and the 5th respondent continued to function as Addl. Public Prosecutors in the respective Courts, 5th respondent by virtue of the orders of appointment newly issued in G.O.Rt No.37, dated 6-1-1997 and the writ petitioner by the orders of this Court despite his appointment having been invalidated by an order of this Court dated 18-9-1996 and despite his name not having been recommended for appointment as Addl. Public Prosecutor.
7. By judgment dated 9-4-1999, writ petition 369 of 1997 has been dismissed with costs.
8. At the hearing of the appeal, Sri M.V. Ramana Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the appellant urged that the appointment of the 5th respondent is invalid as the panel was sent by the District Collector, Krishna District and not by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, who has been invested with the powers of Addl. District Magistrate in relation to the metropolitan area of Vijayawada with all the powers of District Collector under the Code, by orders of the State Government in G.O. Ms. No.284, dated 20-5-1989. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that sending up of the panel by the District Collector is, in the aforementioned circumstances, in clear transgression of
the mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code, which, according to him, ordains that a panel be sent up, in the factual matrix of the case, only by the Commissioner of Police who is the District Magistrate of the Metropolitan area of Vijayawada. This is the self-same ground that has been urged and has been rejected by the learned single Judge. Be that as it may, we proceeded to consider the submission on its merits, such as it is.
9. In the judgment between the parties viz., the appellant and the official respondents, in WA No.127] of 1996, the question whether the District Magistrate referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code, is the District Collector, Krishna District or the Commissioner of Police, for the Metropolitan Area of Vijayawada, was not adjudicated upon in the absence of material. Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code provides that 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 and Addl. Public Prosecutors of the District. The provisions of the Code are clear and contemplate the preparation of the panel by the District Magistrate and not by the Addl. District Magistrate. No doubt, the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, has been appointed as the Executive Magistrate and Addl. District Magistrate in relation to the metropolitan area of Vijayawada, by the State Government in G.O. Ms. No.284, dated 20-5-1989, qua the powers conferred by Section 20 of the Code and on such appointment the Commissioner of Police was empowered to exercise all the powers of the District Magistrate. But the mere fact of such appointment does not divest the District Collector, Krishna District, of his mantle of the District Magistrate of Krishna Dist., which includes the metropolitan area of Vijayawada, nor does the appointment in G.O. Ms. No,284, denude the District Collector of his powers of a District
Magistrate. The powers of the District Magistrate, Krishna District, continue to inhere in the District Collector, Krishna District, and there is nothing on record or in any law urged on behalf of the appellant to show or warrant the presumption that the District Collector ceased to be District Magistrate, Krishna District, including the metropolitan area of Vijayawada or that such powers are excised from the District Collector and invesled in the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. Section 23(1) of the Code provides that-
“2J.(1) All Executive Magistrates, other than the Additional District Magistrate, shall be subordinate to the District Magistrate, and every Executive Magistrate (other than the Sub-divisional Magistrate) exercising powers in a subdivision shall also be subordinate to the sub-divisional Magistrate, subject, however, to the general control of the District Magistrate.”
Section 23(2) of the Code provides that –
“2J.{2) The District Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among the Executive Magistrates subordinate to him and as to the allocation of business to an Additional District Magistrate.”
10. In the light of the foregoing provisions of the Code, in particular Sections 7, 23 and 24, we are clearly of the view that the District Collector, Krishna District, continues to be the District Magistrate, Krishna District, including the metropolitan area of Vijayawada, for the purpose of exercising the powers under Section 24 of the Code. The various aforementioned provisions of the Code have to be read in conjunction and so read clearly signal the Legislative Principle that the power and jurisdiction to prepare a pane! for appointment as Public Prosecutors
or Additional Public Prosecutors for the District has been invested with the District Magistrate inasmuch as he would have the overall knowledge, competence and comprehension of the needs of the Courts for which appointments to be made and the professional competence of the Counsel for such appointment has to be arrived at by him in consultation with the specified Judicial Officers of the Courts concerned. In this context of law, there is no error in the action of the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Krishna District, having prepared a panel of names for appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Further in the case on hand appointment is not only for the Metropolitan area but also for the Court of II Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, which includes an area outside the metropolitan area.
11. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, we find no error of law or discretion in the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The learned single Judge also found and recorded the fact that the writ petitioner’s name does not find place in the panel and in accordance with provisions of subsection (5) of Section 24 of the Code no person shall be appointed by the Slate Government as 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) of Section 24 of the Code. The petitioner has thus no right to be considered for appointment. In the context of the above facts the learned single Judge expressed a doubt as to the locus standi of the writ petitioner (appellant) to file the writ petition. The sequence of events clearly disclose that the appellant whose appointment has been invalidated by the earlier proceedings of
this Court and does not even figure in the panel of names, has thought fit to launch successive litigation solely with a view to force himself and continue as Additional Public Prosecutor without a scintilla of a legal foundation for such continuance. With due restraint, we are constrained to observe that such conduct on the part of a member of the legal profession does not contribute to the dignity of the profession and needs to be deprecated.
12. For all the aforementioned reasons we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with costs.