A P JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. SECRETARY FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in ordering stoppage to Petitioners 2 to 6 herein of payment of two advance increments for possession of law degree qualification and ordering recovery of the said advance increments already paid to them as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

(2.) The petitioners rely on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S. Sankora Rao v. Secretary, Covt. ofA.P., 1997 (1) ALD 465 and in the normal course we would have allowed the Writ Petition by following that Judgment. But, the 1st petitioner happened to be the A. P. Judicial Employees Association and Petitioners 2 to 6, who are said to be the actual persons affected, did not file any affidavit. The affidavit in support of the Writ Petition was given by B. Kasinath Sastry, describing himself as the Organising Secretary of the 1st petitioner-Association. He stated that "the Petitioners 2 to 6 obtained permission from the concerned authorities i.e., the Hon'ble High Court to study Law Degree'' and that they completed law degree and obtained law degree certificates from the recognised Universities. He also stated that Petitioners 2 and 4 were working as Steno-typists and Petitioners 3,5 and 6 were working as Typists in various Courts in Khammam District under the control of the 4th respondent i.e., the District and Sessions Judge, Khammam.

(3.) As the averment made in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition that Ihe Petitioners 2 to 6 obtained permission from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to study for law degree was intrging, when the matter came up on 18-9-1997 we, inter alia, required the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners to present all the facts relating to the obtaining of the permission for taking up the law degree courses and also whether the petitioners approached the authorities concerned apprising them of the Judgment of this Court in S. Sankara Rao's case, (supra). In the additional affidavit dated 25-9-1997 filed by B. Kasinath Sastry it was reiterated that Petitioners 2 to 6 obtained permission from the High Court to study law course and no further information was furnished. We, therefore, directed on 26-9-1997 that each of the Petitioners 2 to 6 should file comprehensive affidavits in support of their claim of their having obtained degrees in law specifying what type of course they underwent and what type of degrees they obtained - whether they were Day-Scholars in any college or whether they took correspondence course etc.