- (1.) I have gone through the detailed judgment of my learned brother Mehta, J. and I fully agree with him that a Public Prosecutor does not hold a 'Civil Post' under the Government, but holds a public office and is required to discharge important statutory functions on behalf of the Government, I also fully agree with him that there is no relationship of 'master' and 'servant' between a State and a Public Prosecutor appointed by the State. I also agree with him that the consultation envissaged by Section 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutor must be an effective consultation and the views expressed by the District and Sessions Judge on the merits of candidature of a person whose name has been sent in panel must be sent to the Government by the District Magistrate and the Government must apply its mind to the recommendations of the District & Sessions Judge before appointing a Public Prosecutor. I am in full agreement with Mehta, J. that the Government must not act arbitrarily and must act fairly in the discharge of its public duties and all actions of the State can be tested on the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) However, I would like to say few words on the question as to whether the Government is entitled to terminate the tenure of a Public Prosecutor without any cogent reason.
(3.) Petitioner Manak Chand Jain was appointed as Public Prosecutor by an order dated 18-3-1983 by the Government under Section 24(3) read with Section 24(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by relaxing provisions contained in clause (14) of the Law & Judicial Mannual. Term of appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and the last extension was made up to June 30, 1993 by order dated 7-2-1990. The District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer issued a notice dated 26-6-1990 inviting applications from those Advocates who wanted to be appointed as Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors. The Advocates were directed to submit their names with full particulars by 30th June, 1990. Petitioner Manak Chand Jain apprehended the termination of his service and, therefore, he filed a writ petition on 16th July, 1990 with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from terminating his service as Public Prosecutor, Ajmer before 30th June, 1993. An interim order was passed by the Court against termination of his service. However, the Government was left free to give one month's notice to the petitioner. The Government thereafter issued notice dated 1-9-1990 seeking to terminate the service of the petitioner. The District & Sessions Judge made his recommendations for appointment of Public Prosecutor/Additional Public Prosecutor for the district of Ajmer. In the panel prepared by the learned District & Sessions Judge, the name of the petitioner as well as that of Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya was included; Learned District & Sessions Judge made very appreciative remarks about the performance and efficiency of the petitioner. He also gave fairly good remarks for Shri Vasant Vijay Vargiya as Public Prosecutor for the district of Ajmer. A detailed reference has been made to the provisions of Rajasthan Law & Judicial Mannual, 1952 and in particular, to the provisions contained in Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the same, which have been referred to by Shri Mehta, J. in his detailed judgment. Reference has also been made to the provisions of Section 24 Cr. P.C.;