Judgment:
ORDER
Ramaswamy, J.
1. The petitioner, an Assistant Public Prosecutor, Gr. II, is assailing the validity of the appointment of the first respondent in the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 112, Law Department, dt. April 13, 1984 as Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Additional Sessions' Court at Ananthapur as illegal and void and to declare the petitioner as having been appointed to the said post.
2. The facts are not in dispute. Though the petitioner had his practice as an advocate for some time, on Nov. 1, 1965 he was appointed as Asst. Public Prosecutor Grade II of the General Subordinate Services under the State and he is a regular Government servant. Ever since, he has been the Prosecuting Officer. When a vacancy to the office of the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ananthapur has arisen there is long chequered career for its filling up. It is needless to dilate with the entire details but suffice it to state that the District Magistrate, Ananthapur in consultation with the Sessions Judge, Ananthapur ultimately sent up a panel of three names inclusive of the petitioner and the first respondent for appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor and the Government had appointed the first respondent under the impugned G.O. for a period of three years. The first ground on which he mounted his attack is that the petitioner being a member of the regular cadre of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Gr. II constituted under G.O.Ms. No. 1466, G.A.D. dt. Oct. 12, 1959, is entitled to be appointed as of right. Sub-section (6) of Section 24 of the Cr. P.C., 1973, for short, 'the Code' denies to the first respondent the right to claim appointment to the office of the Additional Public Prosecutor. It would arise under the proviso thereto only when the State Government is of the opinion that the petitioner or the other person is not suitable for the appointment which is not the case of the Government. Therefore, the order is not only void but also illegal. It is also further contended that the appointment of the first respondent has been manoeuvred, Initially he was not in the panel. Pursuant to an application made by him to the Government, it was stage-managed to bring him on the panel so as to appoint him to the post of Addl. Public Prosecutor. He had no requisite experience in conducting sessions cases which is a pre-requisite under Rule IV, Note-2 of the Advocates Recruitment as Law Officers Rules, 1967, for short, 'the Rules'. Therefore, the appointment is in transgression of the Rules. In support of his contention, Sri Vada Rajagopala Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon not only the relevant statutory rules but also the judgment of this Court in K. Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh W. P. No. 6785/79 & 6320/80, dt. Feb. 8, 1982. The learned Government Pleader, Sri Venkataramana and Sri Chandrasekhara Rao, learned Counsel for the first respondent have refuted the above contentions. The learned Government Pleader has stated that the cadre of A.P.P. Gr. II or Gr. I are not regular cadres envisaged under Sub-section (6) of Section 24 of the Code. The petitioner, therefore, has no right to claim the appointment. Despite the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 24, Advocates, by operation of Sub-section (7) of Section 24, have got a right for appointment as Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, being a salaried Government servant, is ineligible for appointment as an Addl. Public Prosecutor. He sought support from K. J. John v. State of Kerala 1981 Cri LJ 121 (Ker) Sri Chandrasekhara Rao, learned Counsel further elaborated that the Assistant Public Prosecutors, Gr. I and Gr. II are two different cadres constituted by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. There is no right therein given to them for entitlement to be considered for appointment as Addl. Public Prosecutor. The right given under Sub-section (6) of Section 24 is not an automatic right, unless there is a cadre assimilating the petitioner into the cadre. In support of his contention, he sought sustenance from three G.Os. issued by the Government. G.O.Ms. No. 1466 dt. Oct. 12, 1959 relied on by the petitioner : G.O.Ms. No. 160 Home, dt Jan. 31, 1964 constituting Asst. Public Prosecutors, Gr. I, Police Prosecuting Officers and Chief Law Instructors; and G.O.Ms. No. 323 Home, dt. May 26, 1986 creating Directorate of Prosecutors. It is further contended that the Public Prosecutor or Addl. Prosecutor is only a part-time law officer under the rules for a tenure, but whereas the A.P.Ps. Gr. I and Gr. II are regular Government servants entitled to the pensionary benefits. Therefore, their cadres cannot be considered to be regular cadres for the purpose of Section 24(6) of the Code. Even on merits also he contended that the first respondent conducted number of sessions cases, as stated in his counter-affidavit and had requisite experience. Therefore, the appointment of him cannot be said to be illegal. That apart, ever since the date of his appointment he has been discharging the duties as Addl. Public Prosecutor. Therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court.
Upon the respective contentions, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is a member of the regular cadre envisaged under Section 24(6) of the Code. For that purpose it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Code. Section 2(u) of the Code defines 'Public Prosecutor' to mean; any person appointed under Section 24 arid includes any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor. Section 24 deals with the appointment of the Public Prosecutors. Sub-sections (1) and (2) are not relevant for the purpose of this case; hence omitted. Sub-section (3) says that 'for every District,the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district'. The proviso is not necessary for the purpose of this case, hence omitted. Sub-sections (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) read thus:
(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 Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district.
(5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Addl. 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 appointa 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).(7) A person shall be eligible to be appointedas a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (6), only if he has been in practice as an-advocate for not less than seven years.
(8) Not necessary. Hence omitted.
(9) For the purpose of Sub-section (7) and Sub-section (8) the period during which a person has been in practice as a Pleader, or has rendered (whether before or after the commencement of this Code) service as a Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor or other Prosecuting Officer, by whatever name called, shall be deemed to be the period during which such person has been in practice as an advocate.
(Emphasis supplied)
3. A reading of these provisions would indicate that a Public Prosecutor or one or more Addl. Public Prosecutors for every district may be appointed by the State Government from a panel of names of Advocates sent by the District Magistrate drawn in consultation with the Sessions Judge. Advocates having practice for not less than seven years obviously on criminal side as prescribed in Rule 6(1) Note II, are eligible for consideration for appointment as Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor and the panel shall consist of the names of Advocates only. For the purpose of computation of the period of practice under Sub-section (7) or Sub-section (8) the temporary service rendered Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor or other prosecuting officer by whatever designation they may be called, they shall be construed to be practising as an Advocate. By Amendment Act 1978, Sub-section (6) was incorporated : It started with non obstante clause, namely, notwithstanding the inhibition imposed on the State Government to appoint any advocate outside the panel sent by the District Magistrate, where there exists in a State a regular cadre of Prosecuting Officer, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting such cadre. The proviso left out its rigour to enable the State Government to travel behind it and to fall back upon Sub-section (5) of Section 24 to appoint an advocate whose name is found mentioned in the panel drawn under Section 24(4) and sent by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge and of the views of the Presiding Officer of the Court under Rule 6(1)(a) 1st Proviso, as a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Prosecutor, only where the State Government is of opinion that no suitable person from among the regular cadre is available for appointment. In that event the State Government has power, under Sub-section (5) of Section 24, to appoint an advocate from the panel. A re'sume' of these provisions thus indicates that there is dichotomy in the matter of appointment of a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor in a district. First the Advocates having not less than seven years of standing at the Bar of the District are eligible for appointment to the office of a Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor. But where there exists in a State a regular cadre of Prosecuting Officer, the said right of the advocate is taken away and conferred for consideration on the persons belonging to the regular cadre of the Prosecuting Officers. This construction of mine gains support from the construction put up by the Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu State Legislatures by making necessary amendments to Section 24(6) and conferring simultaneous right on the advocates as well. The amendments to Section 24(6) by the Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu Legislatures read thus:
Rajasthan:
Sub-section (6) is to be read as under:
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (5) where in a State there exists a regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers, the State Government may also appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor from among the persons constituting such cadre. (Vide Rajasthan Act No. 1 of 1981).
Thus, it is only discretionary but not mandatory
Tamil Nadu:
Sub-section (6A)
After Sub-section (6), insert the following subsection.
(6A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (6), the State Government may appoint a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years, as the Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor for the district and it shall not be necessary to appoint the Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor for the district from among the persons constituting the cadre of Prosecuting Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu and the provisions of Sub-sections (4) and (5) shall apply to the appointment of a Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor under this sub-section.
4. Under this provision the right to consider is simultaneous and it is not mandatory to appoint from the regular cadre. It is also to be tested on the principle of statutory construction. It is now well settled canons of statutory construction that the courts shall endeavour to (Sic) all the provisions of the statute together and seek to ascertain the legislative intendment from the whole Act considering every provision of the statute in the light of the general purpose of the statute itself. Every endeavour shall be made to give effect to every part of the provision of the statute and every word incorporated therein adopting harmonious construction giving life and efficacy to the language couched in the statute and sensibly read together. It is equally well settled that the Court shall not read any words or phrases or sentences used, to be surplusage or redundant. 'A grant of power to public officers where individual or the public have a right that it be exercised for their benefit is mandatory'. (Vide Sutherland Statutory Construction, Vol. III Section 5811 page 92). Here under Sub-section (7) a statutory right to Advocates as a class for consideration for appointment as a Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor in a District has been conferred in his right as an Advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1962 since he is entitled as of right, after enrolment on the roll of the State Bar Council, to practice in any court in the State. The rigour of that right is now curtailed by engrafting an exception thereto under Sub-section (6) of Section 24. As stated earlier, it postulates that where there exists a 'regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers', it shall be mandatory for the State to appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Prosecutor only from that cadre. Thus the main part of Sub-section (6) of Section 24 manifests the legislative intendment that where there exists a regular cadre of prosecuting officers, eligible person from that cadre alone shall be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor as the case may be. The power to travel behind the main part of Section 24(6) would arise for the State Government only when they form an opinion that no suitable person from the regular cadre is available for appointment as Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutors of the District or a suitable amendment like Tamil Nadu Amendment is brought about. Under those circumstances, the necessary conclusion is that where there exists a regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers, it shall be mandatory for the State Government to appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor in a District only from that regular cadre and not from the panel of Advocates drawn under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code. The contention of the Government Pleader that despite Section 24(6), the advocates are eligible for appointment as a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor is devoid of substance.
5. The next question is whether the petitioner is a member of the regular cadre. The question is what is the meaning of the phrase 'regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers'. And, whether it exists in the State of Andhra Pradesh? Though the learned Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader seek to sustain that the petitioner is not a member of the regular cadre under Sub-section (6) of Section 24 for diverse reasons, in the view I am taking, it is not necessary to deal with that aspect. But suffice to angulate it on the constitutional plane and statutory 'touchstone of entitlement' of the respective classes to practice or conduct trial of sessions cases under Sections 7 and 6 respectively in the Court to which the appointment is to be made. Criminal trial is a voyage in quest for truth and impinges the right to life and personal liberty of the person accused of an offence punishable under the Penal Code. Article 21 of the Constitution confers Fundamental right on a citizen of life and he shall not be deprived of the life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure for appointment of a public prosecutor to conduct prosecution on behalf of the State is a procedure established under the Code. The Prosecutor is to be a person of impartial disposition. He is an officer to assist the Court. So he is the protector of life and personal liberty of the accused as well as the prosecutor on behalf of the society to see that the guilty is punished. Fair trial is part of procedural fairness under Article 21. The appointment of a Public Prosecutor is a very salutory one under the Code. The Code imposes exclusive duty on the Prosecutor to conduct trial on behalf of the State. The persons of unquestionable integrity, honesty and devotion to duty and also of competence are necessary to hold the office of the Public Prosecutor. In considering the claims of the members of the Advocates under Section 24(7) of the Code, among the Advocates having the requisite practice, absolute integrity, honesty and devotion to duty are to be considered for appointment as Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor. In selecting a candidate for appointment as a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor, the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge while drawing up the panel of advocates under Section 24(4) have to keep the above in view. It would equally apply to persons from the regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers.
6-7. Sub-section (7) of Section 24 gives statutory right to the Advocates as a class who have put in not less than seven years of standing at the bar obviously on criminal side of that District considered to be fit and included in the panel under Section 24(4) for appointment as a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor of the District, but Sub-section (6) seeks to exclude them and instead, conferred on persons from a 'regular cadre'. The object of Section 24 of the Code is to appoint competent public prosecutor to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the State. This is a public right to have eligible and competent prosecutor. When the public right is sought to be defeated by excluding the class of practitioners who had the requisite experience the person to be appointed to the office from regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers, he/they must be competent person/persons and must have requisite experience in conducting the prosecution on behalf of the State. Entitlement of consideration of the person or persons from that cadre would arise when they, as of right, are eligible to appear and prosecute on behalf of the State in the Court for which the appointment is sought to be made. That eligibility springs into being only on existence of the cadre or created for the State or the District on the date when the vacancy arose.
8. Thus considered, the legislature appears to have intended that 'regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers'' is the cadre existing on the date when 1978 Amendment Act came into force or created under Section 24(6) and the persons among that cadre are entitled to appear on behalf of the State to prosecute the sessions cases before the Court of Session or the Addl. Court of Session, When such officers are available from the regular cadre and found to be eligible and competent to conduct trial, then and then only he/they is/are entitled to be appointed to the office of the Public Prosecutor or the Addl. Public Prosecutor of the District. Admittedly the Asst. Public Prosecutors, Gr. II or Gr. I, though are constituted by exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as separate cadres as subordinate services of the State, they are not entitled, unlike the advocates, as a matter of right, of course, to appear and conduct prosecution on behalf of the State in the Court of either Sessions Judge or Addl. Sessions Judge. The Asst, Public Prosecutors, Gr. I or Gr. II also have no requisite experience to conduct the prosecution in the sessions cases as required under the Code. They, therefore, cannot be construed to be 'regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers' for the purpose of Sub-section (6) of Section 24 of the Code. The object of Sub-section (9) of Section 24 cannot be put on a higher pedestal than what was intended to serve. It is only an enabling provision to compute the temporary service rendered by an Advocate as Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor, Asst. Public Prosecutors or other Prosecuting Officers by whatever designation they may have been ascribed for tagging on that period of service as his experience as an Advocate. A regular Government Servant with pensionary benefits that is Asst. Public Prosecutors Gr. I and II, cease to be advocates till they attain superannuation and under no circumstances they can be considered to be rendering temporary service.
9. Mr. Rajagopal Reddy, at the end, contended that the Asst. Public Prosecutors, Gr. II are also eligible under Rule 6(1) Note III for appointments as Addl. Public Prosecutors and that the petitioner being eligible, ought to have been considered for his appointment. I am unable to agree. Article 309 of the Constitution provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to any public service and posts in connection'with the affairs of the Union or of any State. The proviso gives power to make statutory rules in the absence of any Acts of the appropriate Legislature. It further postulates that such rules made in exercise of the proviso to Article 309 shall be subject to the provisions of such Acts. The Code is the Act made by Parliament under concurrent list. It is settled law that Law Officer post is an office under the State. The power to appoint as Public Prosecutor, the right to an appointment to it and the procedure thereto are prescribed under Section 24 of the Code. So, Section 24 of the Code to the extent of the occupied field prevails over the Rules. Rules can supplement the Code but cannot supplant it, Section 24(4) mandates the District Magistrate to draw the panel of persons who in his opinion, are fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor of the District, that too, in consultation with the Sessions Judge. Rule 6(1)(a), 1st proviso directs to obtain the views of the Addl. Sessions Judge to which court the appointment is to be made. The source from where the persons are to be drawn has been mentioned in Sub-section (7) of Section 24 of the Code which confers the right only on the advocates for consideration for appointment as a Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor in the district. Though Rule 6(1) Note III of the Rules gives such a right to consider the claims of the Asst. Public Prosecutors, Gr. II, it being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 24 of the Code, Rule 6(1), Note III is void as being repugnant to Section 24 (4) and (5), by operation of the main part of Article 309 and Article 246(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, they cannot lay claim, as of right, for appointment as Public Prosecutors or Addl. Public Prosecutors of the District, unless, as stated earlier, a regular cadre is created as contemplated in G.O. Ms. No. 323 dt. May 26, 1986 giving that right to them as well. Therefore, the Asst. Public Prosecutors Gr. I or Gr. II have no right for appointment as Public Prosecutor or Addl. Public Prosecutor of the District. The decision of this Court in Satyanarayana's case (supra) relied on by Sri Rajagopal Reddy is of little assistance to him since this point was neither raised nor decided but is based on concession by the Government Pleader.
10. The learned Government Pleader sought to place strong reliance on John's case, 1981 Cri LJ 121 (supra). That decision, in my respectful view, is not of much assistance for the purpose of this case. There it was conceded by the learned Advocate General that they are only of temporary service as Asst. Public Prosecutors, though constituted as a regular service and so obviously they cannot be construed to be regular cadre for the purpose of Section 24(6). Though Sri Chandrasekhar Rao, learned Counsel for the first respondent relied upon a passage in the same judgment that regular hierarchy of officers are to be created and only then there is a regular cadre conferring such avenues of changes of promotion and the petitioner cannot be considered since no such rules giving right to promotion under the provision of Section 24(6) have been made. It does not detain me any further, for the reason that it is well settled law that even a single post can be created as a cadre be it either under the statutory power or executive action. Therefore, the mere fact that chances of avenues of promotion are not prescribed, it does not take away the right, if it is otherwise available under Section 24(b) of the Code. I have already held that the person who is eligible to be considered as a regular cadre of Prosecuting Officer under Section 24(6) of the Code must be the person entitled to appear as of right to prosecute the case before the Sessions Court or Addl. Sessions Court, the petitioner being not a person entitled as of right, to appear on behalf of the State to prosecute the sessions cases before the Court of Session or Addl. Sessions Judge, the cadre of Asst. Public Prosecutor either of Gr. I or Gr. II cannot be considered to be the cadre for the purpose of Section 24(6) of the Code.
11. In this view it must be held that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for appointment as Addl. Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the further question whether reasons have been given for not considering the case of the petitioner in the order in the panel became unnecessary to pursue.
12. The next question is whether the appointment of the first respondent is valid in law. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code 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 a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor for the District. The auxiliary verb 'shall' engrafted in Sub-section (4) visualises that (1) the consultation with the Sessions Judge : (2) drawing up of a panel of names of persons who are in his opinion fit to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor is mandatory (Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules prescribes the names of three Advocates) : and (3) that the said panel shall be communicated to the State Government for appointment as a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor under Sub-section (5) thereof. Only the persons whose names have been found in the panel shall be appointed by the State Government. The question is whether there is a panel properly drawn as mandated under Sub-section (4) of Section 24. In the light of the earlier finding that the Asst. Public Prosecutors, Gr. II are (sic) no longer continue as Advocates and are not eligible for consideration for appointment, they cannot be included in the panel much less as a general practitioner. The panel under Section 24(4) is only of Advocates. Their right would arise under Sub-section (7) of Section 24. The question is whether such a panel has been drawn in this case. The panel sent to the State Government by the District Magistrate, Ananthapur in consultation with the Sessions Judge admittedly consists of three persons namely, (1) the petitioner : (2) Sri K. V. Nagi Reddy another A.P.P. Gr. II : and (3) the first respondent. The petitioner and Sri K. V. Nagi Reddy are not eligible for inclusion in the panel under Section 24(4). Then the first respondent alone remains in the panel. The question then is whether the panel consisting of single individual can be said to be a panel for the purpose of Section 24(4) of the Code. It is axiomatic that the very connotation of the panel contemplates of more than one and under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules, the panel contemplates of three advocates. Under those circumstances, it must be held that a single person would riot constitute to be a panel. So ' there is no panel in the eye of law. It is in transgression of the mandatory language of Section 24(4). The appointment of the first respondent, therefore, is per se illegal. That apart from the note file it is seen that Secretary, Law Department, who is competent under Business Rules, has not recommended for the appointment of the first respondent as an Addl. Public Prosecutor and the matter was circulated. When it went to the Chief Minister, the Adviser to the Chief Minister appears 'to have seized of the matter and sought for the opinion of the Addl. Advocate General, by Endorsement dt. Mar. 5, 1984. Thereupon, by letter bearing No. 495, dt. April 3, 1984, the learned Addl. Advocate-General has given his opinion for appointment of the first respondent and on that basis the appointment of the first respondent came to be made by the Adviser to the Chief Minister under his signature, which reads thus : 'Therefore Mr. M. V. Jagadodhara Gupta Advocate at Ananthapur is appointed as Addl. Public Prosecutor for a term of three years from the date of his taking charge'. Thereafter, the Chief Minister signed and then the Law Minister had signed. It is a statutory appointment. The question is whether the procedure adopted is in consonance with the law. It is now well settled that under the Business Rules, the competent authorities are the Secretary, the Minister concerned and the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The learned Government Pleader is at pains to place his hands on any amendment made to the Business Rules authorising the Adviser (not a constitutional or statutory functionary) to the Chief Minister to deal with and make the statutory appointment. That apart, the record also does clearly mention that when the Law Secretary has specifically drawn the attention in his note with regard to certain aspects of the first respondent for not appointing him as Addl. Public Prosecutor, it does not appear to have been adverted to. It is not necessary for me to detail in this case of those reasons for the view I have taken that a panel of single person cannot be considered to be a panel for the purpose of Section 24(4) of the Code.
13. For the above reasons, I hold that the appointment of the first respondent is in contravention of Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code. Accordingly the appointment of the first respondent is quashed.
14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-.