T KUMAR BABU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, filed this writ petition assailing appointment of respondent nos. 2 to 11 (herein referred to as the private respondents) vide G. O. Rt. No. 958, dated 16. 6. 2009 as Government Pleaders of this court as being arbitrary and contrary to the andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions 2000 (for short, "the Instructions") published in g. O. Ms. No. 187, dated 6. 12. 2000.

(2.) IN his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he is an applicant for the post of Law Officer in the High Court of Andhra pradesh, that by the impugned G. O. , respondent No. 1 appointed 29 Government pleaders for the High Court, Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal, Special Court established under the Andhra Pradesh Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, Hyderabad for a period of 3 years commencing from 16. 6. 2009 and that the private respondents are also among the said appointees. He further averred that clause 8 of the instructions provides that the Law Officers shall ordinarily be appointed for a term of three years. The Law Officers so appointed may be considered for a second term, if the government are satisfied that they have proven efficiency, high rate of success and good performance and for a third term in exceptional cases and that the private respondents having been initially appointed on 11. 6. 2004 for a period of three years, their term was extended until further orders and that they were appointed for a third term under the impugned G. O. It is the case of the petitioner that in the absence of the instructions providing for extension of time, the continuance of the private respondents beyond the initial term of three years is deemed to be their appointment for a second term and that their further appointment under the impugned G. O. , shall be deemed to be for a third term, which could be done only in exceptional cases as per the above mentioned instructions. The petitioner pleaded that the private respondents do not fall under the category of "exceptional cases" and that as they are politically highly influential, they managed to get appointed for a third term by trampling over the rights of other eligible and more meritorious advocates. According to the petitioner, the private respondents' appointments were made purely for extraneous considerations, but not on merit and suitability. The petitioner maintained that though the instructions are not statutory in nature, yet they are binding on the State and its actions are liable to be interfered by this Court, if they are vitiated by mala fides, irrationality, arbitrariness or extraneous considerations. The petitioner further pleaded that having framed the instructions, the Government is bound to follow the same.

(3.) AT the stage of admission, this court felt it appropriate to put respondent no. 1 to notice while keeping open the option of issuing notices to the private respondents at a later stage.