YARA RENUKA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of both the writ petitions as a common issue would arise for consideration in the matters. At the outset, we shall notice the factual background from W.P. No. 32191 of 2010 by referring to the parties as they are arrayed therein, as there is not much difference in the factual matrix.

(2.) The Petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the City Civil Court and other Courts in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. She filed the writ petition aggrieved by rejection of her application, for the post of District and Sessions Judges, on the ground that she has not signed the application prescribed for the post. Further, the case of the Petitioner is that she fulfils all the requisite qualifications, and eligibility criteria, as per the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (the Rules) for being appointed as a District Judge by direct recruitment. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh - the second Respondent herein; issued publication dated 10.8.2010 notifying 18 vacancies for the year 2010 in the category of District and Sessions Judges (Entry Level). Thereafter, the first Respondent advertised in Eenadu on 18.8.2010 and The Hindu on 19.8.2010 inviting applications for the post of District Judge. The last date for submission of applications was 03.9.2010. The Petitioner submitted her application before the due date.

(3.) The second Respondent published the list of District-wise eligible candidates for the posts advertised. The eligible candidates in Hyderabad District are from Serial Nos. 686 to 1345. The Petitioner's name was not found in the list. She, therefore, made an application on 03.12.2010 to the second Respondent in this regard. In response thereto, the second Respondent issued the impugned communication dated 06.12.2010. The Petitioner would contend that the list of candidates displayed on 30.11.2010 shows the acceptance of candidates subject to production of certain documents like certificate of Tahsildar/Bar Council, Service Certificate, Demand Draft in favour of the Registrar (Recruitment), production of practice certificate, and clarification with regard to the discrepancy in the name appearing in the application and the certificates. In all these cases, the candidates were directed to produce necessary certificates within the stipulated time. The Petitioner would contend that the same benefit is, however, denied to her in violation of her rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.