SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. PATNAIK & H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.
Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Secretary Home (Courts C1) Department & Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1389 of 2013 (@ Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23312 of 2009)
Decided on : 18-02-2013
Text1
(2011) 1 SCC 688 - Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India - Article 234 - Appointment of Judges - Government not forwarding the entire police report to High Court on administrative side - Itself deciding against candidature of the selected candidate - Not proper consultation as required under Article 234 - High Court could not go only by the police report. (Para 22)
AIR 1974 SC 2192; AIR 2000 SC 1296; AIR 1983 SC 374; (2006) 1 SCC 779 - Relied upon
(1991) 3 SCC 47 - Referred
(1994) 2 SCC 303 - Distinguished
(c) Administration of Justice - Judicial Review - Many situations of exercise of prerogative power are not susceptible to judicial review - However there also there is no complete exclusion of judicial review - Only the area of justiciability is reduced. (Para 26)
1984 (3) All ER 935; (1993) 4 SCC 441 - Relied upon
(d) Administration of Justice - Judicial Review - No material to show CMS as banned organisation or that appellant was a member thereof - Merely appearance of her husband in case for CPM (Maoist) cannot be a ground for denying her appointment as Civil Judge - Impugned order not sustainable. (Para 27)
(e) Administration of Justice - Judicial Review - Appointment - Court can examine only legality of decision making process - Final selection/appointment rests with the authorities - Directions issued. (Paras 29 and 30)
(1993) 3 SCC 552 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Appellant was a practicing advocate.
Posts of 84 civil judges were advertised for filling by direct recruitment.
The appellant figured at sl. 26 in the selection list in general category, but appointment letter was not issued to her on the ground that her husband (also an advocate) was having close links with CPI (Maoist) party.
Writ petition thereagainst was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :-
H.L. Gokhale J.
Leave Granted.
2. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 19.3.2009 rendered by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 26147 of 2008. By that order the said writ petition of the appellant disputing her non-appointment to the post of a Civil Judge in Andhra Pradesh, has come to be dismissed.
Facts leading to this appeal
3. The appellant herein is an advocate practicing in the courts at Markapur, District Prakasam in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Pradesh High Court (Respondent No.2 herein) had invited applications for the appointments to 105 posts of (Junior) Civil Judges (including 84 posts by direct recruitment) by its Notification No.1/2007-RC dated 14.5.2007. A written examination was conducted for that purpose on 28.10.2007, and those who qualified therein, were called for an interview. After the interviews, some 81 candidates from amongst the direct recruits (and 17 by transfer) were selected by a committee of Hon’ble Judges of the High Court, and this selection was approved by the Full Court on the administrative side. The appellant was one of those who were selected, and her name figured at S.No.26 in the list of selected candidates from the general category.
4. However, it so transpired that whereas the other selected candidates were issued appointment letters, the appellant was not. She, therefore, applied on 3.11.2008 under the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005, to find out the reason of her non-appointment. She received a letter dated 11.11.2008 from the respondent No.1 which gave the following reason therefor:
“I am directed to invite your attention to the reference 2nd cited, and to inform you that, adverse remarks were reported in the verification report, that your husband Sri Srinivasa Chowdary, who is practicing as an Advocate in the Courts at Markapur is having close links with CPI (Maoist) Party which is a prohibited organization.”
5. The appellant was shocked to learn the above reason for her non-appointment. Although nothing was stated against her in that letter, according to her what was stated against her husband was also false. She, therefore, filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 26147 of 2008 in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, and prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to declare that the non-inclusion of her name in the list of Junior Civil Judges issued on 23.10.2008 was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Constitution for short), and consequently a direction be issued to the respondents to forthwith issue an order of appointment to her.
6. The respondents contested the matter by filing their affidavits in reply. This time the Respondent No 1 alleged that the appellant too had close links with the CPI (Maoist) party. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit of respondent No. 1 stated as follows:-
“It is further submitted that the Superintendent of Police, has reported that in re-verification of character and antecedents of Karanam Vijaya Lakshmi D/o K. Balaguravaiah, Mangali Manyam, Markapur, Prakasam District who is selected as Junior Civil Judge shows that the confidential intrinsic intelligence collected recently with regard to the movements of CPI (Maoist), it came to light that Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi (Sl. No.26 in the selected list) D/o K. Balaguravaiah r/o Mangali Manyam, Markapur who is selected for the post of Junior Civil Judge and her husband Srinivasa Chowdary s/o Sambasiva Rao who is practicing as an advocate in the Courts at Markapur are having close links with CPI (Maoist) Party, which is a prohibited organization and also in touch with UG cadre of the CPI (Maoist) Party.
Further it is submitted that the CPI (Maoist) is a prohibited Organization by the Government and as the candidate Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi Sl. No.26 in the selected list D/o K. Balaguravaiah r/o Mangali Manyam, Markapur and her husband Srinivasa Chowdary S/o Sambasiva Rao who is pr
K. Ashok Reddy v. Govt. of India
Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India
A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab
State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.