K.J. JOHN, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GRADE I, PALAI ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 12-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~--
~---
K.J. JOHN, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GRADE I, 
PALAI ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JULY 12, 1990 
[M.H. KANIA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 24(6)-State Govern-
ment whether bound to appoint Public Prosecutors and Additional 
Public Prosecutors only from among persons constituting such 'regular 
cadre of prosecuting Officers'-Interpretation of. 
The appellant in the civil appeal was an Assistant Public 
Prosecutor Grade I in the State of Kerala. The writ petition under 
Article 32 of the Constitution has been ftled by the Uttar Pradesh Public 
Prosecutors' Association comisting of the membership of Assistant 
Public Prosecuters, including Prosecuting Officers, senior Prosecuting 
Officers, Deputy Director of Prosecution serving under the Govern-
ment of Uttar Pradesh. In both the cases the controversy raised is that 
there exists a regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers and as such the 
State Government is bound to appoint Public Prosecutors and Addi-
tional Public Prosecutors only from among the persons constituting 
such cadre in view of section 24(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973, as amended by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act of 
1978. 
The appellant's writ petition ftled in the High Court of Kerala 
was dismissed. The High Court was of the view that the provisions of 
sub-section ( 6) of section 24 could have application in respect of States 
where there was a regular cadre consisting of hierarchy of Prosecuting 
Officers with the Assistant Public Prosecutor at he lowest rung and 
having at the top level Additional Public Prosecutors and Public 
Prosecutors. The High Court held that there was no regular cadre of 
Prosecuting Officers in the State of Kerala Comprising therein Public 
Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. The High Court fur-
ther observed that under the Kerala Government Law Officers 
(Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 
1978 the posts of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors 
were tenure posts and as such the Assistant Pllblic Prosecutors who 
were regular hands could not be appointed to the tenure posts. 
319 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990) 3 S.C.R. 
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant/ 
petitioners that Assistant Public Prosecutors Grade I and Grade II 
together constitnted a cadre of Prosecuting Officers so as to attract the 
applicability of sub-section (6) of section 24 of the Code. It was 
urged that in case the meaning to the expression "regular cadre of 
Prosecuting Officers'' under sob-section ( 6) of section 24 l"as given as to 
consist of a regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers going npto Public 
Prosecutor at the top, then there was no benefit to such persons by 
enacting sob-sections ( 6) and (9) in section 24, by the Amending Act of 
1978. It was further urged that there was no bar for appointment of 
Assistant Public Prosecutors against tenure posts as officers on 
depntation. 
The State of U .P. in its counter has brought out the distinction in 
these two kinds of posts in the manner and terms of their appointment, 
discharge of dnties, emoluments etc. It was further urged that in Uttar 
Pradesh there was no regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers within the 
meaning of section 24( 6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such 
the petitioners were not entitled to appointment as Public Prosecutors 
or Additional Public Prosecutors. 
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition, this Court, 
HELD: (1) The intention of introducing sub-section (6) and the 
E 
deeming fiction in sub-section (9) was in order to safeguard the promo-
tional rights of Prosecuting Officers in such of the States where there 
was already in existence a regular cadre consisting of a hierarchy of 
Prosecuting Officers going to the top level of Additional Public Pro-
secntors and Public Prosecutors. [334E-F) 
F 
(2) The Kerala High Court was right in taking the view that the 
expression "regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers" comprised a service 
with Assistant Public Prosecutor at the lowest level and Public Pro-
secutors at the top. In case a regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers did 
not go upto Public Prosecutor at the top, the State Government could 
not be considered as bound to appoint Public Prosecutor or Additional 
G 
Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constitnting such cadre 
under t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.