Consultation Process for Public Prosecutor Appointments Must Strictly Adhere to Notification Specifics and Statutory Primacy.

Two practicing lawyers (petitioners) challenged the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent as District Government Pleader (GP) and Public Prosecutor (PP) for Alappuzha.

The District Collector had issued a notice on December 18, 2024, inviting applications for the post of "Government Pleader" under the Kerala Government Law Officers Rules, 1978.

The District Collector forwarded a list of eight candidates to the District Judge for consultation.

The District Judge, after interacting with candidates and gathering reports from Sessions Judges, recommended a panel of only three names, disapproving five (including the first petitioner) for lacking sufficient trial experience in serious sessions cases.

The 4th respondent, included in that panel, was subsequently appointed to both posts.

The second petitioner contended he did not apply because the notice only specified "Government Pleader," and he expected a separate notification for the post of "Public Prosecutor".

The court applied Rule 7 and 8 of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978, which govern the appointment of Law Officers holding public posts.

It further applied Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which mandates a consultative process between the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge for the appointment of Public Prosecutors.

The court relied on the precedent in Suo motu revision petition initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 1731], which established that the State must give primacy to the opinion of the District Judge in such consultations and held that the 1978 Rules do not apply to Public Prosecutors, as they do not hold a "public post" under the Kerala Public Services Act.

Regarding the consultative process, the Court found no illegality in the District Judge’s recommendation of only three names out of eight.

The Judge had scrutinized credentials, consulted other Sessions Judges, and interacted with candidates, concluding that the excluded five lacked the "expected experience" for serious criminal trials; such application of mind satisfies the requirement of primacy of judicial opinion.

However, regarding the notice, the Court observed that Rule 7(2) of the 1978 Rules allows for the separation of the offices of GP and PP.

Since the notice dated December 18, 2024, explicitly invited applications for "District Government Pleader" and cited Rule 8 (which refers to Law Officers/GPs), the mention of "Public Prosecutor" only in the "subject" line was insufficient.

The Court reasoned that eligible lawyers specializing in criminal law might have refrained from applying, assuming a separate notification for the PP post would follow, thus causing the exclusion of eligible candidates from the selection pool.

The Court set aside the selection process and the appointment of the 4th respondent to the posts of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Alappuzha.

The respondents were directed to issue a fresh, clear notification for both posts and conduct a new selection.

However, to prevent a vacuum, the present incumbent (4th respondent) was permitted to continue in office until the fresh selection process is completed.