L SRIPAL REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been filed questioning the appointment of the 4th respondent as Special Secretary to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The 4th respondent hitherto was holding governmental job and had retired. Now he is recalled and re-employed as Special Secretary to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. This is questioned on five grounds.

(2.) Sri K. Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of appointment is traceable to Article 187(3) of the Constitution of India, which contemplates creation of this post by notification and that this has not been done. His second contention is that the appointing authority under Rule 4 of A.P.Legislature Service (Ad hoc) Rules, 1983, is the Governor in consultation with the Speaker of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and such a consultation is absent in this case The third contention is that recalling of an Officer, who retired about six years back, is unwarranted as it cannot be said that his services are indispensable. The fourth ground is that the Office of the Special Secretary to a Legislative Assembly has got so many privileges including that of immunity and the person, who holds such an Office, should be impartial having no political allegiance, that the 4th respondent is recalled and re-appointed only because of his affiliation and allegiance to Telugu Desam Party, which again swept into power and that he cannot be impartial as expected of his office and on that ground his appointment is illegal. The fifth and last ground is that there is no necessity to appoint the 4th respondent Outright, I reject the contentions putforth regarding grounds No.3, 4 and 5. It is not for this Court to verify as to whether the services of the 4th respondent are indispensable. It is for the authority concerned to take a decision as to whether a particular person, who is to be appointed as Special Secretary to the Legislative Assembly, is competent or not Such a competency cannot be evaluated by this Court As such, the 3rd ground fails.

(3.) Insofar as grounds No.4 and 5 are concerned, there is no material to hold that the 4th respondent cannot discharge his functions impartially. Merely because he was an Officer in the Government then ruled by Telugu Desam Party and that he retired and he is again recalled after the said party has again swept into power, there cannot be any inference drawn that he has got political strings disabling him to be appointed to the post of Special Secretory to the Legislative Assembly. Further, such kind of posts are 'posts of confidence' and it is for the appointing authority to choose a person of his choice to discharge the said functions. The appointing authority is the best judge not only with regard to necessity of creating a post, but also of choosing a person, whom he feels confident As already stated above, the necessity or otherwise to appoint an Officer is not within the realm of this Court and it is for the Government -appointing authority. As such, these grounds fail.