A P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. BHASKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and the State Government are the appellants herein. They question the correctness of the view taken by our learned brother Rama Rao J,, in W.P. No. T4286/84 that the proviso to Rule 12(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules ("the Rules", for short) is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The relevant facts may be noticed.

(2.) The respondent is a Law Graduate of the Andhra University and was enrolled as an advocate on 2-2-1977. He had practised as advocate for over four years at Razole in East Godavari District With effect from t-4-1981, the respondent joined the service of Hindusthan Ship-yard Limited at Visakhapatnam, which is a wholly-owned Company by the Government of India. The Service Commission invited applications through a notification by advertisement on 3-12-1983 for filling up 121 vacancies of District Munsiffs by direct recruitment. In response to the above advertisement, the respondent submitted an application and he also appeared for the screening test held on 27-5-1984. On 20-9-1984 the Service Commission informed the respondent that his petition for appointment was rejected as he had not "fulfilled the conditions in the proviso under paragraph 4 (1) (ii) of ths Rules of the Commission's 'information for candidates', that is the petitioner is not serving in the Government of A.P.". Proviso under paragraph 4(I)(ii) referred to above correspond to the proviso under Rule 12(b) of the Rules.

(3.) Appointments to the category of District Munsif can be made by direct recruitment, by transfer or by promotion. In the present case, appointments were notified to be made by direct recruitment. Rule 2(15) of the Rule specifies that a candidate, including a person in the service of the Government of India or the Government of a State, is said to be recruited direct, in case his first appointment is made otherwise than (i) by promotion from a lower category in the service, (ii) by recruitment by transfer from any other service, or (iii) by re-employment if the candidate was retired from service of the Govt. prior to such appointment. It is further stated under Rule 2 (15) that, if a member of the service is selected for appointment by direct recruitment, he shall be deemed to have resigned from the service of which he is a member prior to his appointment. (b) by transfer from full members of approved probationers the categories of employees specified therein. It may be pointed out that the rectruitment by transfer from full members or approved probationers shall not exceed two out of every twenty vacancies. It may also be pointed out that the catagories of employees specified in Rule 4 2) are all persons dealing with Law in one office or other in some capacity. It is enough if it is noticed that these categories of employees, who are eligible to be recruited by transfer, are associated with LAW in the discharge of their duties as full members or approved probationers. Rule 12 (b) of the Rules prescribes the following qualifications for eligibility to appointment by direct recruitment : (a) The applicant must not have completed 32 years of age ; (b) Must be actually practising as an advocate of a. High Court in India; (e) Must have been actually practising in court of civil or criminal Jurisdiction in India for the period of not less than three years. It is, therefore, clear that for the purpose of eligibility for recruitment directly only practising advocates, speaking generally, can be considered. There is, however, a proviso to Rule 12(b) which reads as under :