- (1.) The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 17-10-1990 as well as has prayed that Rule 5(2) of the Rules be struck down. It is further prayed that the petitioner may be directed to be reinstated as Public Prosecutor, Jodhpur.
(2.) The brief facts, which are necessary for the convenient disposal of this writ petition, are that the petitioner is an Advocate and his name is on the rolls of the Bar Council of Rajasthan. He was appointed as Public Prosecutor at Jodhpur on 30-7-1988. Though the initial appointment of the petitioner was for a period of six months but the same was extended from time to time and the last extension was granted upto 30-6-1993 by the order dated 27-12-1989. However, his services were terminated on 17-10-1990 and one Pokar Ram Bishnoi was appointed vice the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the validity of Rule 5(2) as well as the order terminating his services.
(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents and it has been pointed out that respondent was appointed according to Rules 12, 14 of the Law & Judicial Department Manual read with Section 24 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the reference made by the petitioner to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1951 is misconceived as now all the rules have been consolidated in the Law & Judicial Department Manual. It is submitted that the District Magistrate was directed to send a panel for appointment of Public Prosecutors in consultation with the District Judge, Jodhpur. A notice dated 17-7-1990 was issued by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur inviting applications for the posts of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. The petitioner also applied to the District Magistrate in response to the above notice including respondent No. 2. The District Magistrate forwarded the application to the District Judge, Jodhpur requesting him to forward a panel of lawyers to whom he considers fit for appointment to the post of Public Prosecutors. The petitioner's name as well as the name of respondent No. 2 were included in the panel of lawyers who were considered to be fit for being appointed as Public Prosecutors. This panel was forwarded to the State Government and the State Government after considering over the matter appointed respondent No. 2 as Public Prosecutor on 17-10-1990. The respondent No. 2 assumed his duties in pursuance of the aforesaid order. It is contended that the petitioner voluntarily submitted his application therefore, it is not open for him now to challenge the appointment.;