Deprecating the State government for its unhealthy practice of unlawfully posting an official as in-charge director of the Directorate of Prosecutions and Government Litigants, the High Court of Karnataka has removed H.K. Jagadeesh from the post of in-charge director by issuing a writ of quo warranto.
Noting that though Mr. Jagadeesh was appointed as an in-charge director for six months in August 2019 but was continued for more than three-and-a-half-years in the post, the court said that “no statutory functions of the office can be discharged by the official holding additional charge and thus, it has been virtually rendered dysfunctional”.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Krishna S. Dixit passed the order on March 11 while allowing a PIL petition filed in 2023 by Sudha Katwa, a city-based advocate. The petitioner had questioned the legality of posting Mr. Jagadeesh as an in-charge director.
Concurrence of CJ
Also, the court held that appointment to the post of Director of Prosecutions, even whilst placing someone in the office by way of in-charge, independent charge or additional charge, can be made only after obtaining concurrence from the Chief Justice of the High Court as mandated in Section 25A (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“The object of prescribing such a condition is to ensure that only a worthy candidate is placed in the said office. The candidate should have a high standing in the occupation of law, and his credentials should be unimpeachable. Usually, the information about the credentials of the candidates lies with or can be secured by the office of Chief Justice. Therefore, such a requirement cannot be dispensed with even whilst placing someone in the office by way of in-charge, independent charge or additional charge arrangement,” the Bench observed as the government had not taken CJ’s concurrence while appointing Mr. Jagadeesh to the post.
In no circumstance, appointment to the post of the director can continue indefinitely as has deplorably happened in the instant case though during exigency of public administration warrant such recourse may be justified only if its tenure is too short to be little, the Bench has observed.
Not eligible
The Bench also said that Mr. Jagadeesh was not eligible for holding the post of director as he does not belong to the cadre of deputy directors of prosecution but he is merely an official in the Law Secretariat of the State government.
As per the law, the Bench said, the appointment to the post of the director can be made by way of selection from the cadre of deputy directors, and hence only a person from the cadre of deputy director could be placed by way of even in-charge arrangement to the post.
“How such an arrangement [appointing Mr. Jagadeesh] could be made and continued with a slew of extensions, is ununderstandable, to say the least,” the Bench said while directing the government to appoint an eligible person with the concurrence of the CJ within eight weeks.
