The Andhra Pradesh High Court has 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.

The court observed that earlier political affiliations is not an ineligibility to seek appointment as Director of Prosecution. But the State would be required to put in place a reasonable procedure which is fair and transparent, the court said.

Directing the State to finalise the terms of appointment of Director of Prosecution, the Bench of Justice Ravinath Tilhari and Justice R Raghunandan Rao observed that, "It is not necessary that the process of appointment requires an examination to be conducted to determine relevant merit or demerit of the candidates to decide upon the best candidate available for the post of Director of Prosecution. The State would be required to put in place a reasonable procedure which is fair and transparent. It must also be remembered that the requirement of concurrence of the Hon‘ble Chief Justice for any such appointment would mean that such appointment need not follow the normal process of conducting some kind of written or oral examination."

Senior Counsel M Ravindranath Reddy appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate General S Sriman, along with others, appeared for the respondents.

In this case, 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 a 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.

The Court observed that, "there is no dispute that the petitioner had filed an application for being considered for the post of Director of Prosecution. It is also not disputed that the order of the Division Bench had been passed on a concession by the Government Pleader appearing for the State and as such the 1st respondent cannot claim ignorance of the order of this Court or filing of the application by the 2nd respondent. Non-consideration of the application of the petitioner, in view of the orders of this Court... vitiates the entire process of selection and the same has to be set aside."

The Court also observed that the State may make interim arrangements by appointing an Interim Director.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Counsel M Ravindranath Reddy and Counsel B Srinarayana

Respondent: Advocate General S Sriman, Counsels Vivek Chandrasekhar S, VR Reddy Kovvuri

Cause Title: B. Ramakoteswara Rao vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice Ravinath TilhariJustice R. Raghunandan RaoDirector Of Prosecutions

Ananya Soni