B CHENNAKESAVA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Smt. Bhaskar Lakshmi appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

(2.) The petitioner filed this Writ Petition to declare the entire process and proceedings initiated for appointment of Assistant Government Pleader for the Courts of Senior Civil Judge and Junior Civil Judges at Kandukur, Prakasam District as illegal and violative of rules of Executive Instructions issued in G.O. Ms. No. 57, Law, dated 16-03-1990 and to direct the District Collector and the District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District to submit a fresh panel by including the name of the petitioner for consideration by the State Government for appointment of Assistant Government Pleader for the Courts of Senior Civil Judge and Junior Civil Judges, Kandukur, Prakasam District.

(3.) The petitioner is an advocate aged about 60 years and practising from 1963 having practice of 36 years standing. He was appointed as Assistant Government Pleader by the Government in G.O.Rt. No.369 (Law) Department, dated 31-10-1994 for the Sub Court and District Munsif Court, Kandukur, Prakasam District, for a period of three years and that his term has expired on 27-12-1997. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 12-10-1998 alleging that he is more meritorious when compared to the other persons whose names were recommended by the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, at the instance of the District and Sessions Judge, Ongole and the whole process in which the District Collector and the District Judge, Prakasam District, in getting the panel of advocates from the Senior Civil Judge, is illegal and contrary to the instruction No.3 of the Executive Instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 16-03-1990. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector is the competent authority to recommend the names of the advocates to the Government for appointment after ascertaining the views of the concerned District and Sessions Judge. It is further contended that the District and Sessions Judge alone should make his own enquiries and to send the panel of names to the District Collector for his recommendation, but in turn he cannot get the panel of names through the concerned Judge of the Court in which the Assistant Government Pleader is sought to be appointed, and therefore, the action of the District Judge in getting the panel of names through the Senior Civil Judge is wholly illegal.