S ABRAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Advocate or a pleader shall be eligible to be appointed a D1strict Judge by the Governor under Article 233 of the Constitution of India only when he is recommended by the High Court for such appointment.

(2.) The appointmens of certain advocates as D1strict and Sessions Judges in Category II of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service as per G. O. Ms. No. 666 dated 7th December, 1973, of the Government of Andhra Pradesh is assailed in this batch of writ petitions firstly on the ground that they are not in conformity with Article 233 of the Constitution for the reason that persons not recommended by the High Court were appointed, and secondly that they are vitiated on account of the fact that certain extraneous considerations not relevant or germane for the exercise of the power to appoint were taken into account while making those appointments and as such they are hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions may now briefly be stated. We shall advert to the affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 7789 of 1973 both for the facts of the case as well as for the array of the parties. As early as on 3rd January, 1972 the Government the 1st respondent herein, was requested by the High Court, the 2nd respondent, to take necessary steps for filling up six vacancies by notifying six posts of D1strict and Sessions Judge, Grade II "for direct recruitment." In response to that, the 1st respondent as per the D. O. letter dated I4th July, 1972 informed the 2nd Respondent that the six ex1sting vacancies in the cadre of D1strict and Sessions Judges, Grade II were being notified for direct recruitment. A copy of the advertisement proposed to be published in the Gazette was also enclosed therewith.