ANIL KUMAR T Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition was originally filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent (State Government) in requesting the second respondent (High Court) to reconsider the recommendations dated 28-4-1993 made by it in favour of the writ petitioner for filling up the posts of the District & Sessions Judges Grade- II by direct recruitment as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and unconstitutional. By way of an amendment ordered in W.P.M.P. No.22.438 of 1993, the petitioner is seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent in requesting the second respondent for reconsideration of the recommendations dated 28-4-1993 made by it as invalid for the reason that the same is not supported by good and weighty reasons, and further to declare that the rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioner for the appointment as District & Sessions Judge Grade-II by direct recruitment is illegal, unconstitutional, ab initio void and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ, petitioner is seeking a direction to the first respondent to appoint him as District & Sessions Judge Grade-II with effect from the date the other persons were appointed.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed with the following averments: Petitioner is an Advocate on the Rolls of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. He was enrolled on 20-1-1977 and his standing at the Bar is more than 16 years. He was also appointed as Government Pleader for the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in G.O.Ms. No. 197, Law Department dated 17-8-1988 and working as such till 12-1-1990 when he, along with others, submitted resignations en masse. Resignations were accepted on 12-1-1990 by the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No.10, Law Department. While so, there was an advertisement calling for applications for the posts of District & Sessions Judges Grade-II issued in the month of January, 1992. The petitioner submitted his application for the same. The petitioner belongs to backward Class Group-'D'. He was interviewed by the Committee of Judges of the High Court on 15-3-1993. According to the petitioner, antecedents were also verified by the High Court and the Committee was aware of his acquittal on merits in Sessions Case No.34 of 1986. On a consideration of all these factors, Committee of High Court Judges selected the petitioner in the open category and recommended his candidature to the Government, along with others, for appointment as District & Sessions Judge Grade-II. The said recommendation was also cleared by the Full Court on its administrative side on 28-4-1993, pursuant to which the communication was sent to the first respondent. Thereupon first respondent sent a memo to the petitioner enclosing an attestation form to be filled for submission. Column 12 of the said attestation form requires information as to whether the petitioner has ever been arrested by the Police, convicted by any Court or detained of any offence and the petitioner answered in the said column as "NEVER" in view of his acquittal on merits in the Sessions Case No.34 of 1986. The petitioner reliably learnt that the first respondent was not intending to accept the recommendations on the ground that the information given in Column-12 of the attestation form amounts to incorrect disclosure of facts and, therefore, the petitioner rendered himself unfit for appointment. Petitioner says that it is none of the duty of the Police Department to see whether the petitioner is fit for appointment or not and it is entirely within the purview of the High Court. High Court having recommended his candidature, first respondent should have appointed him as District & Sessions Judge Grade-II. The communication of the Government dated 17-11-1993 to the High Court seeking reconsideration of its earlier recommendation dated 28-4-1993 in favour of the writ petitioner is wholly unsustainable. The petitioner also stated that there was no evidence of any meeting having been held by the High Court on its administrative side for reconsidering the proposal submitted by the first respondent in its letter dated 17-11-1993 and the meeting is not minuted and it cannot be treated as a meeting at all. It is also stated by the petitioner that having regard to the fact that he obtained anticipatory bail, it cannot be said that he has ever been arrested and the answer given by him for the question in Column-12 of the attestation form is factually correct and what the attestation form requires is a fact and not an answer as per legal technicalities. So far as the discharge of duties as Government Pleader in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is concerned, the petitioner asserted, that the allegations are vague and no particular instance is given and whatever instances are given, they are no(t only factually unsustainable and incorrect but also unsustainable in law. Petitioner also gave certain details assailing the allegations made in that regard to establish that they are all false. On the above mentioned allegations, petitioner sought the prayer as amended.

(3.) On behalf of the second respondent, counter-affidavit as well as additional counter-affidavit have been'filed. It is stated in those affidavits that applications have been called for for the posts of District & Sessions Judges Grade-II and the petitioner was one such candidate who applied for the same and he was interviewed on 15-3-1993. During the course of deliberations the Committee of Judges of the High Court had an occasion to consider the information that the petitioner was involved in a Sessions Case and the Committee got the Judgment of the First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.34 of 1986 and found that the petitioner was not liable to be eliminated on the ground of unsuitability and his candidature was also recommended by the Full Court and the same was submitted to the Government. It is stated that the verification of antecedents of the selected candidates by the Government before giving actual appointment order is the next stage of the matter and the High Court has nothing to do with the same. It was further stated that after the verification of the antecedents and on a consideration of the information given in Column-12 of the attestation form by the writ petitioner, first respondent sent a communication seeking the views of the second respondent on the stand of the first respondent that the petitioner is not suitable for appointment on the ground that the information given by the petitioner in Column-12 of the attestation form is not true and correct and he has not conducted himself properly when he served as Government Pleader in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Full Court discussed the points raised on behalf of the first respondent and expressed its views as mentioned in the letter dated 6-10-1993. The views have been extracted therein. The High Court agreed that the answer of the writ petitioner in the first part of the Column-12 appears to be not correct. So far as the conduct of the petitioner in the discharge of the duties as Government Pleader in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is concerned, it is stated that it has no comments to make and that at the time of selection, High Court was not aware of those facts and it is for the State Government to take a final decision in view of the facts stated.