B. Chennakesava Rao vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned Counsel Smt. Bhaskara Lakshmi appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri M. V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

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 16-3-1990 and to direct the District Collector and the District 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.

The petitioner is an advocate aged about 60 years and practicing 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 is 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 16-3-1990. 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.

The Government filed a counter-affidavit stating that the District Collector, Prakasam District, in his letter dated 19-8-1998 has furnished a panel of three advocates to the Government for making appointment to the post of Assistant Government Pleader, Sub-Court, Kandukur in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District and the advocates, who are in the panel, possess the prescribed qualifications as contained in instruction No.3A(ii) of the Executive Instructions issued in G.O. Ms.No.57 dated 16-3-1990 and while the matter is under consideration, the petitioner filed this writ petition, which is premature and the petitioner is not justified in filing the writ petition by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court so as to restrain the State Government from exercising their function in the matter.

The learned Counsel appearing for the District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District and the Senior Civil. Judge, Kandukur, produced the written instructions sent by the District and Sessions Judge, dated 8-1-1999 stating that the name of the petitioner was not considered to include in the panel as he has already worked as Assistant Government Pleader for 3 1/2 years and in view of the well established convention it is not desirable to continue him for the second time, and therefore, his name is not included in the panel. It is further submitted that pursuant to the request of the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, calling for the panel for appointment to the post of Assistant Government Pleader, the District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, ascertained the views of the concerned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, in which Court the post of Assistant Government Pleader is sought to be appointed and in consultation with the concerned Senior Civil Judge, the panel of the names have been forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District to the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam vide letter in Dis.No.6730 dated 18-07-1998. While submitting the parawise remarks, the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, no doubt stated adverse remarks against the petitioner and the petitioner also filed his reply to the same, but I am not inclined to go into the said rival contentions for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this writ petition.

The 5th respondent filed his counter stating that the petitioner filed this writ petition with ulterior motive to stall the appointments so that he can continue in the post of Assistant Government Pleader illegally by reason of the interim direction granted by this Court on 6-11-1998.

It is further submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in ascertaining the views by the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned Judge before considering the panel and forwarding the same to the District Collector and the District Collector after ascertaining the views of the District and Sessions Judge alone, recommend the panel to the Government as per the Executive Instructions in G.O. Ms. No.57, and therefore, the panel recommended by the District Collector is in accordance with the rules and instructions and that the allegations made by the petitioner are incorrect and untenable.

Admittedly, the name of the petitioner is not recommended by the District Collector and the name of the petitioner is not in the panel of names recommended by the District Collector and as his name does not figure in the panel, the petitioner has no right to be considered for appointment. In that view of the matter, it is doubtful whether the petitioner has locus standi to file this writ petition at all. That apart, it has been repeatedly exhorted by the Apex Court as well as this Court that the members of the legal profession are required to maintain high standard of legal ethics and dignity and profession and they are not supposed to solicit work or seek mandamus from Courts in matters of professional engagements. It is a matter of regret that the members of the legal profession still persist in filing such writ petitions repeatedly as held by this Court in the case of Surapaneni Ram Prasad Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others, , when there is no complaint of illegality either in following the rule of reservation or in not following the other mandatory provisions.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he has a right to get his name recommended because of his standing and his working as Assistant Government Pleader presently, cannot be accepted as the petitioner has no right much less the fundamental right to get his name included in the panel for recommendation by the District Collector to the Government. The petitioner cannot compel the District and Sessions Judge to suggest his name to the Collector for recommendation and it is unfortunate to file such a writ petition for a direction to include his name in the panel.

The only legal contention put-forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector and District Magistrate has to ascertain the views of the District Judge alone for recommending the names but the District Judge, in turn, cannot ascertain the views of the concerned Senior Civil Judge of the respective Court for which the Assistant Government Pleader post is sought to be appointed. In the instant case, as stated above, the District Collector had ascertained the views of the concerned District and Sessions Judge alone and the concern District and Sessions Judge for sending his views he has to ascertain the views of the concerned Senior Civil Judge because the concerned Senior Civil Judge is the proper and concerned Judge, who will be watching the conduct, character and the quantum and quality of work done by the respective advocates and in the interest of the Court and the Government, it may not be found fault with the action of the District and Sessions Judge in ascertaining the views of the concerned Senior Civil Judge for which Court the post of Assistant Government Pleader is sought to be made. Ultimately, the District and Sessions Judge alone submitted his views to the concerned District Collector and the District Collector recommended three names after ascertaining the views of the District and Sessions Judge alone, and therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is without any justification and the action of respondents 2 and 3 cannot be found fault with. It may not be desirable for the District and Sessions Judge to send the particulars of the advocates to the District Collector without consulting the concerned Senior Civil Judge, but it is desirable for the District and Sessions Judge, also to get the views of the concerned Presiding Officer of the Court while submitting his views to the concerned District Collector. The action of the respondents does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.