S NAGENDER Vs. GOVRNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The profession of law is called a noble profession. It does not remain noble merely by calling it as such unless there is a continued, corresponding and expected performance of this noble profession observed the Apex Court in Satish Sharma v. Bar Council of A. P. In Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor the learned Judges held that the lawyers are a force for the preservance and strengthening of Constitutional Government as they are guardians of the modern legal system. While dealing with the locus standi of lawyers in maintaining the Public Interest Litigation in relation to the matters concerned with the independence of judiciary in S.P. Gupta and others v. President of lndia and others it was held that there can be no doubt that the practising lawyers have a vital interest in the independence of the judiciary and if any unconstitutional or illegal action is taken by the State or any public authority which has the effect of impairing the independence of the judiciary, they would certainly be interested in challenging the Constitutionality or illegality of such action. In Venkat Rao v. Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kakinada a learned Judge of this Court while dealing with the aspect of role of lawyers, observed at paras 47, 48 and 49,

(2.) The question raised in the present Writ Petition is in relation to the appointment of Government Pleaders in Andhra Pradesh High Court, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal etc., on the ground that certain appointments are illegal, contrary to the Rules, non-compliance of the different conditions specified by the relevant Rules inclusive of inadequate representation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes etc., despite the rule of reservation which is expected to be followed in such appointments.

(3.) Sri Thimothy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had traced the historical background relating to the appointment of LawOfficers in the High Court, Administrative Tribunal etc., and would maintain that public element is attached to these offices or the posts and hence necessarily the Rules in force may have to be followed. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the eligibility criteria, the condition relating to the Incometax assessments and on facts pointed out that certain of the Government Pleaders do not satisfy the eligibility criteria. Several factual aspects had been narrated at length and Rules 4(3)(c), (7), 12, 13, 14 of G.O.Ms. No. 187 dated 6-12-2000 had been specifically pointed out. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the aspect of employment and appointment and also the aspect of public office, civil post and tenure post and the tests to be satisfied in relation to either a public office or a civil post. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Articles 60, 162 and 335 of the Constitution of India and would maintain that having framed the Rules the Government is bound to follow the Rules and the stand taken by the Government that these are only guidelines, definitely cannot be accepted since once such Rules are framed by them even in exercise of Article 162 of the Constitution of India though not under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Government is bound to follow such Rules and cannot escape taking a stand that those are mere executive instructions and hence not binding on the Government. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the policy, change of policy and the parameters and the limitations in this regard in relation to the power of the Government and also the power of the Courts to interfere with such decisions. The learned Counsel while making further submissions would maintain that as far as the violation of Presidential Orderand zonalisation is concerned the said question needs no serious consideration at the hands of this Court. However, the learned Counsel would comment that in the light of the definition of "Law Officer" all the posts cannot be treated as one unit and there are separate categories and these are to be treated as separate units and horizontal and vertical reservations are to be given. The Counsel also would draw the attention of this Court to the preamble of the Constitution of India and stressed on the aspect of social justice. The learned Counsel pointed outto relevant portions of the counter affidavit and also the reply affidavits filed and would contend that it is clearthat certain of the Government Pleaders are having less than three years I.T. Assessments and in this view of the matter also these appointments are to be held as invalid. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in IndraSawhneyv. Union of India and also the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in A.P. State Backward Class Welfare Association v. State of A.P. Backward Classes Welfare (P-2) Department and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.139 and 140 of 2003 (State of A.P. v. Lakshma Reddy and others, dated 16-9-2005) and would contend that in the light of the same, the instructions laid down in G.O.Ms. No.187 to be followed. The learned Counsel pointed out that the words "at least three years" in the Instruction 4(3)(c) to be understood as immediately preceding three years and there cannot be any discontinuity thereof. The learned Counsel also pointed out that certain had produced only bank challans and certain had filed certificates and at any rate whatever may be the interpretation that can be given to the words "at least three years", respondents 13, 23, 24 and 29 are not eligible for appointment and this would show that there was total non- application of mind while making the appointments. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain other decisions to substantiate his contentions. SUBMISSIONS OF SRI TARAKAM :