Judgement

UNTWALIA, J.:- In this appeal by Special Leave we are once again called upon to lay down the meaning and scope of Article 233 of the Constitution of India relating to the appointment of District Judges. This Article along with other Articles in Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution came up for consideration and was interpreted by this Court on several occasions in the past yet, a Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgment under appeal felt persuaded to take a wholly erroneous view as to the meaning of the Article and committed a serious error in the application of the principles of law settled by this Court to the facts of the instant case.

2. We shall state the facts in a narrow compass shorn off unnecessary details. On 3-1-1972 the Government of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No. 1 was requested by the High Court, respondent No. 2, to take necessary steps "for filling up six vacancies by notifying six posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II for direct recruitment." By a D. O. letter dated 14-9-1972 the first respondent informed the second respondent that the six vacancies were being notified for direct recruitment. They were actually notified in the Gazette of that date. With the approval of the High Court, an advertisement was published on 1-8-1972 in the Deccan Chronicle. The total number of applications received in response to the advertisement was 381. Twenty six applications were found to be not in order and rejected. The remaining 355 candidates were called by the High Court for interview by the Selection Committee of the High Court on various dates. Shri A. Panduranga Rao, the sole appellant in this Appeal was one of the candidates interviewed on 14-6-1973.

3. The High Court eventually made its recommendations in its D. O. letter dated 13-7-1973 recommending in order of merit six persons "as most suitable candidates from among the applicants, for being appointed as District and Sessions Judges, Grade II." This letter was written by the Registrar of the High Court as directed "by the Hon ble the Chief Justice, and the Hon ble Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court," The appellant s name was the fifth amongst the six names recommended.

4. Although it is not very relevant to say so, just to complete the link in the chain of relevant events, it may, be stated here that the recommendations made by the High Court seemed to have leaked out. Whoever might have been responsible for this leakage it was all the same a very unfortunate thing. This led the Bar Association Civil City Court. Hyderabad and the High Court Bar Association to pass certain resolutions and to send certain memoranda to the Government even to the extent of making some adverse comments against some of the persons recommended by the High Court for appointment. On receipt of the same Government wrote a D. O. letter to the High Court on 24-7-1973 expressing surprise at the leakage of secret information but at the same time inviting the High Court to send its comments. The High Court sent a detailed reply and comments in its D. O. letter dated 26-7-1973 pointing out that the leakage of the secret information could not be possible at the High Court end. It is not necessary for us to advert to the comments or resolutions of the Bar Association or the views of the High Court expressed in its letter dated 26-7-1974.

5. We now come to the relevant letters in question. A. D. D. letter dated 26-7-1973 was written by the Government to the High Court with reference to the latter s letter of recommendation dated 13-7-1973. We may point out here that this letter dated 26-7-1973 was written by the Government without any reference to, and in all probability, before the receipt of the High Court s letter dated 26-7-l973 in reply to the Government s of 24-7-1973. In the Government s letter dated 26-7-1973 attention of the High Court was invited to Instruction 12(5) of the Secretariat instructions and a request was made "to send the list of persons