incumbents should hand over charge to the newly appointed Government Advocates and thereafter, the newly appointed Government Advocates can assume charge. Further, if as contended by the appellants, if the petitioner had left the responsibility altogether, then vital litigative matters in which the State and the Department are parties, would have been left unattended and very many matters in which State and the Department may be defendant, could have been rendered ex-parte or where State is a plaintiff in any suit or where State and the Department is an applicant in any I.A, in any suit, etc., would have been rendered for dismissal due to default. These are the clear consequences that would follow if the abovesaid stand of the Government as reflected in Ext.P-7 is upheld by this Court. Consequences would be disastrous and highly adverse to the State and the Department. It is also relevant to note that this Court in the decision in Aboobaker v. M.Ratna Singh [1992 (1) KLT 41], has considered the provisions of the abovesaid KGLO Rules. It has been noted therein the recital in the said Rules that the same are framed under the enabling powers conferred as per the Kerala Public Services Act. But this Court has held in the said decision that a Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor, etc., is not a post under the State Government, but is an office and that therefore, such holders like Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor, etc., cannot be said to be
