PRABHUNATH VASIREDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Advocate, practicing in the High Court of A.P. He filed these writ petitions in the form of a Public Interest Litigation, for a Writ of Mandamus in the form of a declaration to the effect that the selection and recommendation of the name of the 5th respondent in each of the writ petitions (for short, 'the incumbents') by respondents 2 to 4 for appointment as Judges of High Court, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 217 of the Constitution of India and for consequential order to set aside the selection and recommendation. The ground pleaded by the petitioner for claiming the relief is that respondents 2 to 4 did not take the relevant factors provided for under Article 217 of the Constitution of India into account, in the process of consultation. Since the parties to both writ petitions are common, except for the 5th respondent, reference to the parties, shall be deemed to those in both writ petitions, unless otherwise mentioned. Substantial portion of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which runs to 27 pages, is devoted to narrate the process of appointment of a person as Judge of High Court and the basic qualifications that are required to be possessed by such person, for being recommended for appointment to that Office.

(2.) The petitioner states that on 08.09.2009, the Chief Justice of the High Court of A.P., the 3rd respondent herein, has selected and recommended the names of four advocates from the High Court, including the names of the incumbents for appointment of the Judges of High Court and that objections were raised from various circles against the recommendation of the names of incumbents. The petitioner is also said to have joined some advocates in submitting representation to the Chief Justice of India, with a request to reject the recommendation.

(3.) The petitioner filed W.P. No. 264 of 2010 before this Court, in relation to the process referred to above. It was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, on being informed that the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent on 08.09.2009 were returned by the Government of India. According to the petitioner, one day after the writ petition was dismissed, the 3rd respondent forwarded a list of 14 advocates, including that of respondent No. 5 and the same is said to have not been agreed to, by the State of Andhra Pradesh, mainly on the ground that the names, which were rejected earlier were included in the fresh recommendation. The petitioner filed W.P. (Civil) No. 314 of 2011 before the Supreme Court challenging the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent on 29.04.2011 for appointment of 14 judges. The said writ petition was dismissed, in view of the order passed in another writ petition on the same subject-matter.