R V RAMESH Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions under Article 226 of the constitution, a common prayer has been made for quashing the repeal of Andhra Pradesh law Officers (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1967, (in short, the "1967 Rules"), made by notification with G.O.Ms. No. 55, dated 16-3-1990 of the Law Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh; and the simultaneous order with G.O.Ms. No. 57, dated 16-3-1990, containing the Executive Instructions regulating the recruitment, conditions of service and remuneration of the Law Officers of the Government of Andhra Pradesh other than the Advocate General, (in short, the "Executive Instructions"). In W.P. No. 11896/90, a further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from making appointments to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II in Chittoor District without the aid of Employment Exchange, or without inviting applications for the said post by advertisement, without any process of selection and without adequate safe-guards or reservations for the advocates belonging to the scheduled or backward classes. Simyarly in W.P.No. 16247/90, an additional prayer has been made for quashing the Govt. decision as violative of Art. 16(4) and of the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 9652/83,dated 24-1-1984, besides claiming a relief for appointment of the petitioner as Special Public Prosecutor after quashing that of the 3rd respondent therein by G.O.Ms.No. 198, dated 8-11-1990 issued by the Law Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In W.P. No. 853/94 an additional prayer was made by filing W.P.M.P. No. 1023/94 for directing maintenance of status quo in reference to the appointment of Public Prosecutor for West Godawari District, pending disposal of the writ petition on merits and in this round about manner, the petitioner therein was successful in continuing to hold the office of Public Prosecutor of West Godavari District, frustrating the directions made in W.P. No. 7540/93, dated 3-12-1993, which was filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 853/94 himsetf, challenging the appointment of one K. Janardhana Rao to the said post by G.O.Ms. No. 210, Home Department, dated 3-6-1993.

(2.) To give a brief resume of relevant facts, the 1967 Rules pertaining to recruitment of Law Officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh were rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. These rules did not make any provision for reservation of posts of Law Officers for backward classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes or for any other weaker sections of the society. It appears, pursuant to a representation made by the President of the Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Association in 1983, the question about feasibility of making adequate provisions regarding reservations in 1967 Rules was examined by the Government and, as a matter of policy, the Government decided to make provisions for reservation of posts of Law Officers for persons belonging to backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It further appears, that before implementation of this Government policy, W.P. No. 9652/83 dated 24-1-1984 was filed by the Andhra Pradesh B.Cs. S.Cs. and S.Ts. Advocates' Association for directing the State Government to implement the rule of reservation in favour of backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of appointment of Law Officers, by amending 1967 Rules, if necessary. On 24-1 -1984 this Court rendered its decision in W.P. No. 9652/83, which is reported in 1984 Lab.l.C. 1053, (A.P. B.Cs. & S.Cs. & S.Ts. Adv. Assocn. vs. Chief Secy, to Govt), and it was directed that: (i) the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall, in pursuance of the decision already taken by it, make forthwith a provision providing for reservation in favour of scheduled-castes, scheduled-tribes and backward-classes, in the matter of appointment of Law Officers in the State. It is for the Government to decide, whether to make such provision by an administrative order which also is held sufficient for this purpose by the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kanwal Parkash vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 2 Ser.LR. 801 - or by making a rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The provision shall make, as already decided by the Government, substantially in the same terms as Rule 22, Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules; (ii) pending the making of such provision, the Government shall not make any appointment to the category of Law Officers under the A.P. Law Officers (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1967, the State of Andhra Pradesh. By sheer co-incidence, the very next day of the said decision of this Court, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 14, dated 25-1-1984, introducing the rule of special representation in the 1967 Rules. After allowing the 1967 Rules with amendments carried out in 1984 to prevail for about a period of six years, the State Government with the advice of its Law Secretary decided to repeal the 1967 Rules and to replace them by the impugned Executive Instructions with no provision for reservation of posts of Law Officers for backward classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes Advocates and accordingly issued the impugned notification and the order, dated 16-3-1990, giving rise to these petitions. To complete the narration, during the pendency of these petitions, the Government on 29-1-1994 issued G.O.Ms. No. 15, introducing certain amendments in the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 57, dated 16-3-1990. By these amendments, eligibility qualifications for appointment of a person as Law Officer were prescribed and paragraphs 2C and 3B were inserted with a provision for preferences to SC/ST and BC candidates. By further G.O.Ms. No. 18, dated 3-2-1994, a provision was made for selection of SC/ST and BC candidates for undergoing training under the Law Officers on payment of monthly stipends. By the last G.O.Ms. No. 30, dated 1-3-1994, the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 57, dated 16-3-1990 was further amended and the experience qualification at the Bar was reduced from 15 years to 10 years.

(3.) Before we proceed to discuss the main issues raised in these petitions, we would !ike to deal with and decide some independent issues raised in the last three W.P.Nos. 11896/90, 16247/90 and 853/94.