D PERI REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first and third petitioners are presently working as Section Officers, whereas the second petitioner is working as Court Master in the High Court service. They are Law Graduates, and have passed the departmental tests required to be passed for appointment by transfer as District Munsifs. As there was no direct recruitment to the category of District Munsifs, a number of vacancies remained unfilled and the petitioners were appointed as temporary District Munsifs and they worked as such for some time. Later they were reverted for want of vacancies and were sent back to the parent Department.

(2.) Subsequently when vacancies of District Munsifs arose, the High Court prepared a panel of persons to be appointed, having been satisfied with their performance earlier as District Munsifs on Temporary basis and included the names of the petitioners in the said panel. The Government appointed the persons recommended by the High Court in the panel, excepting the petitioners, as District Munsifs. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that they were not appointed as they crossed the age of 45 years. Accordingly, G.O.Rt.No.1965 Home (Courts-C) Department dated 12-7-9C was issued appointing others in the panel as District Munsifs on temporary basis. The petitioners question the action of the first respondent in not appointing them as District Munsifs, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioners are over-aged as they crossed 45 years and therefore, they are ineligible to be appointed and they were rightly left out from the Government Order.