Skip to content


P. Anantha Padmanabha Sarma Vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService;Constitution
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 307 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1969AP195
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 14 and 16; Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules - Rules 4 and 26; Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special (Amendment) Rules, 1966
AppellantP. Anantha Padmanabha Sarma
RespondentHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Appellant AdvocateP. Babul Reddy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocatePrincipal Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
.....the high court, bench clerks and shorthand writers in the high court, continue to be eligible for appointment, persons like the petitioner who worked satisfactorily as second class magistrates for a number of years are ineligible......with a minimum of five years' service were eligible to be appointed by transfer as judicial second class magistrates. the petitioner who was a deputy tahsildar and who had completed five years' service as an upper division clerk and who possessed all the other requisite qualifications was selected for appointment as judicial second class magistrate on a temporary basis without rights of probation. the order of appointment dated 17-8-1960 is in the following terms:'the government approve the proposal of the high court to select the following candidates for temporary appointment to the posts of judicial second class magistrates purely on an emergency measure without probationary or other rights; (1) sri r. ananta padmanabha sarma, deputy tahsildar, kakinada. (2) to (6) x x x x (2) the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) Under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules. before they were amended on 12-5-1966, full members or approved probationers in the category of Upper Division Clerks with a minimum of five years' service were eligible to be appointed by transfer as Judicial Second Class Magistrates. The petitioner who was a Deputy Tahsildar and who had completed five years' service as an Upper Division Clerk and who possessed all the other requisite qualifications was selected for appointment as Judicial Second Class Magistrate on a temporary basis without rights of probation. The order of appointment dated 17-8-1960 is in the following terms:

'The Government approve the proposal of the High Court to select the following candidates for temporary appointment to the posts of Judicial Second class Magistrates purely on an emergency measure without probationary or other rights;

(1) Sri R. Ananta Padmanabha Sarma, Deputy Tahsildar, Kakinada.

(2) to (6) x x x X

(2) The selection of the above candidates is purely as an emergency measure and in excess of the proportion between direct recruits and transferees from services which will be decided later on. They will be replaced by the approved candidates regularly selected in accordance with the rules as soon as the latter become available. The temporary appointments are liable to be terminated at any time without notice.'

The petitioner worked as a Second Class Magistrate from 20-8-1960 to 6-9-1963 when he was reverted for want of a vacancy. He was again reappointed temporarily on 22-2-1965 and once more reverted for want of a vacancy on 28-2-1966. At that stage, by G. O. Ms. No. 996 Home dated 12-5-1966 Rule 4 of he

Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service was amended and the category of Upper Division Clerks was deleted from the categories of persons eligible for appointment by transfer as Second Class Magistrates. After the amendment of the Rules Upper Division Clerks were no longer eligible for being appointed as Second Class Magistrates, but by an over-sight the petitioner was again temporarily appointed as Second Class Magistrate in August, 1966, reverted on 31-10-1966 and reappointed on 20-1-1967 temporarily. When it was realised that the petitioner and some others were not eligible to be appointed as Second Class Magistrates after Rule 4 was amended, orders were issued reverting all of them to their parent departments. The petitioner questions this order in this application for the issue of a Writ under Art. 226.

(2) One of the arguments of Mr. Babul Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that neither the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules as they stood originally, nor the amendments apply to the petitioner, because, according to him. R. 26 of the very rules excludes the applicability of those rules to persons like the petitioner. Rule 26 excepts persons who were members of the Andhra Subordinate Magisterial Service on 31-3-1958, persons who were members of the Hyderabad Judicial Service on 31-10-1956 and persons who were members of the Andhra State Judicial Service on 4-12-62 from the operation of the rules. The petitioner does not belong to any of these categories and the rules, therefore, clearly apply to him. The petitioner was appointed, in 1960 as a temporary Judicial Second Class Magistrate under the Andhra Subordinate Magisterial Service Rules. He was certainly not a member of the Andhra Subordinate Magisterial Service on 31-3-1958. There is no substance in this contention of Mr. Babul Reddy.

(3) The next submission of Mr. Babul Reddy is that the amendment made in 1966 offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution . since as a result of the amendment, while categories like Sheristadars of Sub Court, Nazirs and Head Clerks of District Court, Special Clerks and Translators of the High Court, Bench Clerks and Shorthand Writers in the High Court, continue to be eligible for appointment, persons like the petitioner who worked satisfactorily as Second Class Magistrates for a number of years are ineligible. The contention of Mr. Babul Reddy is that any rule which makes ineligible for appointment, persons who were previously eligible and who had put in years of temporary service is unreasonable. I cannot say that the deletion of category of Upper Division Clerks from the categories of persons eligible for appointment as Judicial Second Class Magistrates is by itself unreasonable. The fact that persons who were appointed temporarily under the rules then existing have to be reverted as a result of amendment of rules cannot make the rule itself unreasonable because the persons who are reverted will not suffer any detriment in their parent departments. Their service on deputation in other departments will be treated as service in the parent department.

This has been made clear by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. M. H. Bellary, : (1966)ILLJ50SC . Mr. Babul Reddy also submits that certain persons who were appointed as Second Class Magistrates from the category of Upper Division Clerks are still being retained as Second Class Magistrates, whereas the petitioner and a few others have been reverted to their parent departments. The retention of the others is justified by the respondent on the ground that they were Judicial Second Class Magistrates on the date of coming into force of the amendment and therefore they could not be reverted. The question whether persons holding temporary posts of Second Class Magistrates on the date of coming into force of the amendment can be continued as Second Class Magistrates notwithstanding the amendment, is a question that is not free from doubt, but that will not in any way help the petitioner. If the continuance of the others as Second Class Magistrates is irregular then the result will be that they will also have to be reverted. But that will not give a right to the petitioner to be appointed as a Second Class Magistrate. In the result the Writ Petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

LGC/D.V.C.

(4) Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //