N VENKATARAMANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a practising advocate at Chittoor. He was appointedas Government Pleader on 20th February 1984 and his term expired on 19th February, 1987. Thereafter the District Collector Chittoor sent a panel of three names after consulting District Judge, Chittoor. For some reason no appointment of Government Pleader on regular basis was made since the expiry of the petitioner's term on 19-2-1987. Therefore the petitioner filed this writ petition on 30-9-1988. During the pendency of the writ petition upto October 19, 1988 the petitioner continued to be in charge Government Pleader in view of the relevant provisions and rules enabling the previous incumbent to continue to be placed in charge. However, on 4-10-1988 the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 451 directing the Public Prosecutor Mr. Varadhana to be in charge of the Office of Government Pleader. This Court passed an order to maintain status quo on 18-11-1988 in WPMP 18789 of 1988. The Government filed its counter on November 19, 1988. Thereafter the main writ petition was directed to be posted and that is how the matter has come before me.

(2.) The petitioner's main grievance is that the District Collector hassent a panel of three names, that the Government has been returning the file back every time and this has happened thrice and according to him the file has been returned for the fourth time. The petitioner states that the reasons for leturning the panel thrice to the District Judge is arbitrary and mala fide. According to him, the claims of the backward classes, scheduled castes have been considered while sending up the panel each time and one of the names of the panel, in fact, is, that of an advocate who belongs to backward class. It is also stated that there are no valid and justifiable reasons for sending back the panel and that political motivation and clannish considerations are the basis for return of the panel.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same contentionsas raised in his affidavit and also submitted that the petitioner has not filed this writ petition because his name is also in the panel but because no appointment of the Government Pleader on regular basis has been made since February 19, 1987. According to him, no reasons have been assigned for rejection of the panel.