S.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By means of the present petition a writ of quo warranto was sought calling upon Sri Jitendra Kumar, respondent No. 4, who was appointed as a Government Advocate, viz. Public Prosecutor on 1 May, 1990, as to under that authority he is holding the post. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged that before any appointment could be made of a Public Prosecutor in the High Court or if any Additional Public Prosecutor is appointed as a Public Prosecutor in the High Court, it is mandatory that the consultation with the High Court is made as required by Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the pendency of the writ petition and while the arguments were going on, the State Government consulted the High Court as required under Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code - -1973, in regard to the appointment of Sri Jitendra Kumar as Public Prosecutor in this Court. From the minutes of the meeting of the Administrative Committee of the High Court dated 15th February, 1991, it is clear that the Administrative Committee found Sri Jitendra Kumar as a suitable candidate for this post of a Public Prosecutor in the High Court and consequently a resolution was passed to the effect that he is a fit person to be appointed on the post of a Public Prosecutor. Since Sri Jitendra Kumar was already functioning as a public prosecutor from 1 May, 1990 and the High Court has been duly consulted and since in the opinion of the High Court he is a fit person to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor in the High Court, we do not think it necessary to go into the validity of the appointment of Sri Jitendra Kumar as Government Advocate. He otherwise also retires on 4 May, 1991. We now hold the appointment to be valid.
(2.) LEARNED Advocate General, U.P., Mr. Umesh Chandra, has very fairly stated that appointment of a Public Prosecutor or promotion of an Additional Public Prosecutor to the post of a Public Prosecutor could only be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 after prior consultation with the High Court. He also stated that as and when a question of appointment of the Public Prosecutor will arise in future whether directly or by Promotion from the post of Additional Public prosecutor, the State Government shall make an appointment in accordance with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - - 1973 after the consultation with the High Court. In view of this statement it is not necessary to consider the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner, in effect, the State Government has accepted the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs of the petition.;