T PANDURANGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy now centres round the question as to what is the datefrom which the proviso to Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time, would apply? The facts are not in dispute and it is unnecessary to dilate all the facts.

(2.) The petitioners were directly recruited as Clerks from December, 11962. they were confirmed With effect from October 9, 1971. The third respondent was initially appointed as an examiner and was promoted as an LD Clerk on April 1, 1960, and his services were regularised with effect from August 13,1962. He was confirmed as LD Clerk on November 1,1977, From 1969, there was no direct recruitment made by the Public Service Commission to the posts of LD Clerks, Typists and Steno-Typists. As a result, the District Judges of each unit in the State have promoted candidates from lower cadre and filled those posts from them. As a result, the High Court in its letter dated November 7, 1978, requested the Government to relax in exercise of its power under Rule 56 of the Rules of the rigour of Rule 9 (2) of making appointment by direct recruitment and in the ratio prescribed under Rule 9 (2) (b). The Governor, in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, issued G.O. Ms. No. 450, Home, dated, July 18, 1981, introducing the following amendment :

(3.) Tbe position is accordingly clarified and the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 350/-.