K BHEEMA RAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are advocates practising in the Civil and Criminal Courts at Tanuku. A Court of Subordinate Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge and a Court of District Munsiff are located in Tanuku. The Bar at Tanuku has a strength of about 45 members.

(2.) Consequent on the expiry of the term of office of the Assistant Government Pleader for the Courts of the Subordinate Judge and District Munsif at Tanuku held by one Y. Rajagopal Rao, the said post of Assistant Government Pleader fell vacant on 12-8-1978. This post has to be filled up by direct recruitment from the Bar i.e., the Legal practitioners of the District under Rule 7 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Recruitment. Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules. 1967, hereinafter referred to as "the Law Officers Recruitment Rules". The District Collector West Godavari, by his letter dated 29-6-1978 requested the Tahsildar to send up proposals through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur to fill up the post of Assistant Government Pleader. The Tahsildar, Tanuku, invited applications from the members of the Bar at Tanuku in the prescribed pro forma. About 18 advocates practising at Tanuku including the second petitioner submitted the bio data in the prescribed form to the Tahsildar, Tanuku. Some members of the Bar protested against this procedure of calling for applications by the Tahsildar instead of calling for a panel of names from the Judicial Officers of the Civil Courts at Tanuku. Some members of the Bar like the first petitioner did not apply. The Tahsildar. on receipt of the applications, it appears, recommended a panel of 4 names to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Kovvur, keeping the previous incumbants name i.e., Y. Rajagopal Rao as the first name in the panel and the name of the third respondent viz., I. Rama Krishna Rao as the second. The District Collector, on a consideration of the proposals submitted by the Tahsildar appointed the 3rd respondent as the Assistant Government Pleader, in his proceedings Roc. No.

(3.) dated 6-8-1978 for a period of three years from the date of appointment. By the said order, Ramakrishna Rao was also requested to execute an agreement on Rs. 5 non-judicial stamp in the form prescribed under the Law Officers Recruitment Rules. In this writ petition the legality of the said appointment of Assistant Government Pleader is assailed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submits that Rule 7 of the Law Officers Recruitment Rules confers a blanket power on the District Collector without laying down any guidelines or criteria for eligibility or the criteria for selection to the post of Assistant Government Pleader to be followed by the appointing authority in making the appointment of Assistant Government Pleader. According to him, Rule 6 prescribed the procedure laid down for eligibility and selection in respect of recruitment of Law officers in the District Courts and City Courts and in practice and by convention the District Collector in all other Districts of Andhra Pradesh before making appointment of Assistant Government Pleaders in the Courts outside the District headquarters calls for a panel of Advocates suitable for the said appointment from the Judicial Officers of those Courts situated outside the District Headquarters and the said procedure was in tune with Rules 5 and 6 as the Judicial Officers of those Courts know the merit and ability of the Advocates practising in their courts. According to him, it was only in West Godavari District that there was a significant departure from the said healthy convention and the Collector in West Godavari District calls for a panel of Advocates from the Tahsildar of the Taluq headquarters through the Revenue Divisional Officer. According to him, it was an arbitrary exercise of power giving rise to unpredictability and uncertainty bordering on the whims and fancies of the District Collector to make appointments of Law Officers of his choice without any legal basis or principles. Thus it is contended that Rule 7 confers an unbridled and unfettered and absolute power on the District Collector in respect of the appointment of Law Officers, inasmuch as it does not either lay down any guidelines for selection of the advocates from the Bar or provides any machinery or procedure for selection on any known principles of law. Therefore, such conferment of blanket power of appointment on the District Collector under Rule 7, it is argued, was violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.