SYED RAHAMTULLAH KHADRI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition relates to the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of the District and Sessions Judge (Grade-II)

(2.) The petitioner is an advocate. He states that he obtained the degree inBachelor of Law in 1989 and enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh on 22-06-1989. He claims to have setup practice atChirala by joining the office of Sri R.V. Raghavaiah, Advocate, practising at Chirala. he also states that he obtained M.L. Degree after obtaining permission from Bar Council. The petitioner applied for the post of District and Sessions Judge (Grade-II) on 21-08-1996, wrote the test on 24-11-1996 and appeared for the interview on 18-11-1997. He was asked by the Government by a Memo dated 05-06-1997 to furnish certain particulars in the attestation form which he complied with. However, he came across G.O.Ms.No. 291 (LA & JSCF) Department dated 04-12-1997 appointing four advocates as District Judges but his name was not in the list. He claimed that he was recommended by the High Court but was not appointed by the Government and therefore filed the writ petition for a Mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Government to appoint him to that post

(3.) The second respondent is the High Court. The Registrar of the Highcourt filed a counter-affidavit accepting the fact that the High Court had recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as a District Judge on 13-03-1997 but a complaint was received stating that the petitioner was continuously working as a Lecturer in Justice Komarajah College of Law in Karimnagar and he simply obtained the practice certificate from the Bar Association, Chirala. It is stated that this complaint was investigated by discret enquiries by the District and Sessions Judges of Karimnagar, Guntur and Ongole and the matter communicated to the Government for verification. Subsequently, after discreet enquiry, the Government informed the High Court that the petitioner does not appear to be having the prescribed standing of not less than seven years at the Bar which is the prerequisite qualification under Rule 3 of the A.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules for appointment as a District Judge. The matter was considered by the High Court in the Full Court meeting held on 17-10-1997 and it was resolved that in view of this information, the candidature of this petitioner as well as another candidate were to be withdrawn from the recommendation made earlier. Consequently, the other appointments were made excluding the petitioner from the list of recommendation.