LAWS(APH)-1980-8-5

KESHAVA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On August 08, 1980
P.KESHAVA REDDY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH; REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of the Government Pleader at Warangal was about to fall vacant on 30-3-1979 with the completion of a two term period by one Sri Cbiranjeevi Rao. The question of its filling up had therefore cropped up Recruitment to these posts is governed by certain Rules called Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules 1967 (Hearinafter called the Law Officers Rules) made by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution. Acting under those rules the District Collector, Warangal in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge of that district had sent up to the State Government the names of three practising advocates arranged in order of merit as being the best available from among the community of local lawyers for appointment as a Government Pleader in that post. In that panel the petitioner was number two, the first being one Sri Bhagawandas Mandhani and the last being one Sri Pratap Reddy. However, on grounds of efficiency and past performance, the District Collector strongly recommended to the State Government to continue the aforesaid Chiranjeevi Rao for a third term and only in case the Government being unagreeable to such a course, he requested the government to make appointment from and out of the above panel of three names. On receipt of that panel some time in April, 1979, the State Government had not only rejected the suggestion of the District Collector to continue the aforesaid Chiranjeevi Rao for a third term, but had also rejected the panel of three names sent up by the District Collector. The State Government called for a fresh panel from the District Collector, Warangal.

(2.) The petitioner, who is second in the panel, filed this writ petition challenging the action of the State Government rejecting the panel sent up by the District Collector. His main submission is that in rejecting the panel sent by the Collector the State Government acted ultra vires of its powers under the aforesaid Law Officers Rules. As alreadv mentioned they were made by the governor under Article 309 of the Constitution and were issued in GO Ms. No. 1487 dated 31st August, 1967. The petitioner's contention is that as the State Government has been given under the aforesaid Law Officers Rules no powers to reject a panel sent up by the District Collector, the state Government has no option but to act upon that panel. Alternatively he also submits that the panel sent up by the District Collector in discharge of his statutory duty cannot be rejected by the State Government except for valid and substantial grounds. As no grounds for rejecting the panel exist in the record, nor any grounds are suggested by the State Government in their counter - affidavit, the petitioner argues that the action of the Government is illegal. The petitioner also alleges that the State Government has no material before it justifying its rejection of the panel and asking for sending up a fresh panel and therefore the action is wholly arbitrary. Finally the petitioner charges the State Government as having acted according to political exigencies and argues that the rejection of the panel is the result of mala fide exercise of power and that the same is borne out by the fact that the State Government failed to give or suggest any reasons in its counter.

(3.) The State Government has filed a brief counter of less than seven paragraphs. But its main defence is based on a claim to an unfettered right to appoint any advocate of its choice as a Government pleader. It may be said that the total failure of the counter affidavit to give any explanation in support of the Government's rejection of the panel sent by the Collector or answer the substantial charge made by the petitioner that the State Government rejected the panel without there being any material before it justifying such a course together with its claim to an unfettered right of the Government to appoint advocates of its choice as Government Pleaders is the striking feature of the counter affidavit. In order to take the Government at its best I proceed to read in full the relevant portions of the Government's counter- affidavit. Paragraphs. 3, 4 and 5 of the Counter-affidavit read as follows : "3. In reply to para Nos. 4 and 5 of the affidavit it is submitted that the District Collector, Warangal, has submitted proposals for filling up the post of Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor during April, 1979 and the name of the petitioner was included in the panel. The Collector has reported that the work of the present Government Pleader Sri J. Chiranjivi Rao, is highly satisfactory and has recommended for the third term. The Government after careful consideration of the proposal felt that the existing Government Pleader has already completed two terms and there are no extraordinary grounds to allow him for a third term and decided to call for a fresh panel of advocates for consideration of appointment as Government Pleader. It is not correct to say that the above decision is to satisfy certain political interests in Warangal district. The Government have unfettered right to appoint Advocates of its choice, as Government Pleader in the State. The Government is interested in selecting efficient and meritorious advocates as Government Pleaders.