ANNAPURNASRI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question of importance is raised in the Writ Petition. It is this: Whether a Junior Civil Judge appointed under Rule 11(3)(i)(b) of Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service, 1958 (the Rules, for brevity), is disqualified under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for being selected to the post of District Judge under Article 233(1) of Constitution?

(2.) TO the extent necessary, the brief fact of the matter is as follows. The petitioner was Assistant Public Prosecutor before she was temporarily appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.182, dated 03.02.2004, as Junior Civil Judge to the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service. She has been working as a Judicial Officer from 21.02.2004 when High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued orders posting number of temporary selectees as Junior Civil Judges in various Courts. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued notification dated 15.04.2004 inviting applications to 23 posts of District and Sessions Judge in Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. The petitioner is one of the applicants. By a communication dated 05.05.2008, the State Public Information Officer � cum � Registrar (Judicial), informed the petitioner that her application has been rejected under Article 233(2) of Constitution, aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) A person is temporarily appointed to the category of Junior Civil Judges, provided that such person is a full member or an approved probationer in any category specified in first proviso of sub rule (2) of Rule (4) of the Rules. Such person shall have to be replaced as soon as possible by a member of service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the Rules. Therefore, whether it is a regular appointment made under Rule 4(2) of the Rules or temporary appointment under Rule 11(3) of the Rules, insofar as the discharge of the functions as a Judicial Officer is concerned, no distinction is made by the Rules. Further more, Rule 20 of the Rules, which deals with seniority, also refers to the service of a person temporarily appointed under Rule 11 of the Rules. It provides that though a temporary service does not count towards probation, in the discretion of the appointing authority, such service can also be counted for probation in the event of regular appointment. Reckoning the temporary service for the purpose of seniority at the option of competent authority is a condition of service and it does not in any manner reduce the status of a person appointed as a temporary Junior Civil Judge. Both categories of persons discharge the same functions and exercise same judicial powers. No provision of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, or any other law has been brought to the notice of this Court whereunder a temporary Junior Civil Judge is looked upon as a Judicial Officer with a lower status or exercising powers inferior to the powers exercised by regularly appointed Junior Civil Judges. Therefore, we are not able to appreciate or agree with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. In the context, the decision of the Supreme Court in BabuSingh Gaur (supra) is of no relevance. It is one thing to say that a temporary Government servant does not have a right to the post even if such post is converted as a permanent post and altogether different to say that a temporary Government servant has no status as a Government servant.