K VIJAYA LAKSHMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner is seeking to challenge the action of the respondents in not including her name for appointment to the post of Junior civil Judge vide G. O. Ms. No. 164 Home (Courts C1) Department dated 23. 10. 2008.

(2.) PETITIONER contends that in response to the notification of the year 2007 notifying 98 posts of Junior Civil Judge for recruitment, she appeared as a candidate and appeared for the written examination as well as the interview. Petitioner claims that her Roll Number is 570 and that she was provisionally selected and further procedure including the verification of antecedents of the candidates was completed and ultimately the first respondent issued G. O. Ms. No. 164 dated 23. 10. 2008 approving the selection of 94 candidates as specified in the annexure to the said GO for appointment as Junior Civil judges by Direct Recruitment and Recruitment by Transfer respectively. Since the name of the petitioner was not included in the said GO, petitioner alleges that she filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to information Act and in response thereto the first respondent under his proceedings Letter No. 34200/cts. C1/2008-1 dated 11. 11. 2008 informed the petitioner that adverse remarks are reported in the verification report that the husband of the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in the Courts at Markapur, is having close links with CPI (Maoist) Party, which is a prohibited organization.

(3.) PETITIONER alleges that neither there is any case registered against her husband nor she has taken up any case pertaining to the Maoist party and no case is pending against her also either at the stage of investigation or otherwise. Petitioner is emphatically denying that she or her husband have participated in any Maoist movements, questioned denial of appointment to her by this writ petition on the ground that though there is no material against her, she has been unjustly denied appointment. Prior to filing this writ petition, she also made a representation to the first respondent dated 12. 11. 2008 and as no orders are passed, she approached this Court by way of this writ petition.