V BULLESWARA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners herein who initially held the posts in Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service and having requisite qualifications were promoted as Judicial Second Class Magistrates (for short ' JSCMs') on temporary and ad hoc basis without any right to future re-appointment and seniority, during the years 1979 and 1980. Within a year or two thereafter, the petitioners were further promoted as District Munsifs again on temporary and ad hoc basis. To be more specific, such promotions were given on 11-01-1980 in the case of Petitioners 1 and 2, on 8-9-1982 in the case of 3rd petitioner and on 30-9-1982 in the case of 4th petitioner. Since then, Petitioners 2 and 4 worked continuously as District Munsifs till they retired from service during the pendency of the writ petition and Petitioners 1 and 3 have been continuing as District Munsifs till today. The present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in treating the petitioners as temporary District Munsifs is arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to regularise their services with retrospective effect i.e., from the date of temporary appointment as District Munsif.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioners that their appointment must be deemed to be on regular or substantive basis and in accordance with rules notwithstanding the labte 'temporary'. It is the case of the petitioners and it is not seriously disputed by the respondents that they were promoted against dear vacancies and continued to meet the needs and exigencies of judicial administration. The petitioners also submit that the special ad hoc rule introduced in the year 1985 by G.O.Ms.No.406, Home (Courts) Department, dated 19-7-1985 which came into force with retrospective effect from 12-10-1981 couldnot have the effect of depriving the petitioners' right to regularisation. It may be stated that by virtue of the said ad hoc rule, the source of promotion as District Munsifs from the category of JSCMs as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 4(2) was omitted- The petitioners contend that there is no bar to regularise their services despite the ad hoc rule. The petitioners then submit that by virtue of their long and continuous officiation as District Munsifs with commendable record of service, they should be treated as regular appointees and their services cannot be dispensed with at this stage to make way to directly recruited candidates. According to the petitioners, the action of the respondents in not treating them as regular District Munsifs is violative of constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16 and 21. The petitioners also complain of infraction of Article 14 by alleging discrimination in the matter of regularisation of similarly situated officers and denial of the same benefit to the petitioners.

(3.) The stand of the second respondent as seen from the counter and additional counter filed by the Registrar of High Court is that the petitioners never acquired the status of regular promotees, that their appointment as temporary JSCMs and the later promotion as District Munsifs was traceable to Rule 11 of the A.P. Judicial Service Special Rules which provides for temporary promotions and appointments, that the rules maintain a distinction between regular appointments dealt with by Rules 4(1) and (2) read with Rule 5 and temporary appointments dealt with in Rule 11(3), that the petitioners were not put on probation for the obvious reason that they were merely temporary appointees and that in any case, they cannot claim the right to promotion on regular basis after the amendment of Rule 4(2) with effect from 12-10-1981 taking away the channel of promotion earlier available to the JSCMs. The reason for amending Rule 4(2) byG.O.Ms.No.406, dated 19-7-1985 has been explained to be the abolition of the posts of JSCMs with effect from 12-10-1981. It is stated that right from 1962, there was no regular recruitment of JSCMs as it was contemplated to abolish that cadre gradually. It appears that the draft amendment to the rule was sent to the Government on 8-6-1983. It is also stressed in the counter that the accumulation of additional vacancies between the date on which the estimate was sent to the APPSC and the date of finalisation of select list has led to the temporary District Munsifs continuing since several years. It is contended that the petitioners having failed to get selected by APPSC, cannot maintain a writ petition for regularisation of their services. As regards regularisation of services of temporary District Munsifs appointed in similar manner as that of the petitioners and the relaxation of rules in their cases, it is stated that such regularisation was confined to the number of posts available for promotion (recruitment by transfer) "in that particular selection" and none were regularised beyond the available quota. It is then stated as follows :