Andhra Pradesh High Court sets aside appointment of Director of Prosecutions

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently quashed the appointment of Jalla Sudharashana Reddy as the Director of Prosecutions and ordered the State to finalise a merit-based method for making a fresh appointment to the post [B Ramakoteswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh]..The division bench of Justices Ravinath Tilhari and R Raghunandan Rao also directed the State to finalise the terms of appointment of Director of Prosecution which shall also mention the tenure, the disciplinary authority and the conditions of removal or suspension."The 1st respondent [State] shall finalise the method of appointment of the Director of Prosecutions, in line with the observations of this Court, that the said process shall be indicative of the fact that the search for the meritorious was undertaken and the appointments were made only on the basis of merit and not for any other consideration.”.The Court found various issues flagged by the High Court on the administrative side, regarding the procedure for the appointment of Director Prosecutions, had not been addressed.“The State would be required to put in place a reasonable procedure which is fair and transparent,” it said..B Ramakoteswara Rao, the Additional Director of Prosecutions, had challenged Jalla Sudharashana Reddy’s appointment as the Director of Prosecutions on the ground that a person with political background cannot be appointed to such a sensitive post. It was also contended that the post was required to be filled from within the cadre of public prosecutors.However, the Court opined that a person cannot be declared to be ineligible on the ground that was a member of a political party. The Court also considered whether the position of Director of Prosecutions is part of the cadre of prosecuting officers..In this regard, the Court found that the posts of Director or Deputy Director are not a part of the regular cadre of prosecuting officers as envisaged under Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - the provision for appointment of Public Prosecutors.The Court noted that the two posts were included in the cadre only by way of the Andhra Pradesh Prosecution Service Rules 1992. This inclusion has created confusion, observed the bench.“The posts of Director and deputy Director of Prosecutions included in the cadre, by way of the 1992 rules, cannot be treated to be part of the cadre of prosecutors envisaged under Section 24 (6) [of CrPC]. Therefore, the contention that Section 24 (6) restricts the eligibility to the post of Director of Prosecution to the members of the cadre of prosecutors, under this section, cannot be accepted,” it added..Though the Court did not accept these and other major contentions made by Rao (petitioner), it agreed that there was no proper procedure in place for an appointment to the post of Director of Prosecutions.It noted Section 25-A of the CrPC only provides the qualification or eligibility for the appointment of Director of Prosecution. “However, the method of appointment, the term of appointment, the question whether the post is a permanent post of the cadre wherein the Director of Prosecution would retire along with the other State employees upon attaining the age of superannuation or whether the post is a tenure post is not available or discernible from the provisions of Section 25-A of Cr.P.C.,” the Court found..The Court noted that these issues had also been raised by the High Court administration. The government’s response was that these issues would be sorted out at the time of appointment. However, the record revealed that none of the issues had been addressed at the time of appointing Reddy as the Director.“In the absence of these issues being resolved, no Director of Prosecution could have been appointed,” the Court opined.It thus set aside the State government order and directed it to finalise a merit-based method for appointing the Director of Prosecutions with concurrence of the High Court Chief Justice within four months.In the meantime, the Court ordered that the State may make interim arrangements by appointing an Interim Director..Senior Counsel M Ravindranath Reddy with Advocate B Srinarayana represented the petitioner.Advocate General S Sriman represented the State.Advocate Vivek Chandrasekhar S represented the High Court Registrar General.Advocate V.R. Reddy Kovvuri represented Jalla Sudharashana Reddy..[Read Judgment]