P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are said to be practising Advocates, who appeared for the written test and viva voce held pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the High Court in October, 1996. According to the petitioners, they qualified themselves in the selection. In fact, some of the petitioners allege that their names were included in the original list of selected candidates sent up by the high Court to the Government. But later on, their names were deleted on the application of the principle of carry forward of vacancies reserved for women and left unfilled. In Writ Petition No. 18307 of 1998 filed by five petitioners, the prayer is to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as District Munsifs in response to the Notification dated 23-10-1996 adjudging their candidature in accordance with their merit and not to keep the posts vacant, but to fill them in accordance with law. Writ Petition No. 21451 of 1998 is filed by four petitioners who seek a declaration that the action of the respondents in applying the Note (2) of Rule 22 of A. P. State and Subordinate service Rules pertaining to the principle of carry forward vacancies in respect of women for recruitment to the posts of District Munsifs pursuant to the notification dated 23-10-1996 is illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to appoint the petitioners to the said posts without applying the said rule. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22178 of 1998 seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in deleting his name from the list of candidates selected vide G. O. 60 dated 7-4-1998 is illegal and arbitrary and to direct the third respondent to appoint him to the post of District Munsif. In W. P. No. 23972 of 1998, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in not appointing him as District Munsif even after his selection and verification of antecedents is illegal and arbitrary and seeks a direction to appoint him as District Munsif. He also questions Note II to Rule 22 introduced by G. O. 65, dated 15-2-1997 as illegal and unconstitutional.

( 2 ) BY the Notification dated 23-10-1996 issued by the High Court of Andhra pradesh and published in the newspapers on 30-10-1996, applications were invited for two hundred posts of District Munsifs of which 27 were to be filled by limited recruitment to backlog vacancies reserved for SCs and STs and 173 by general recruitment. Out of 173 vacancies, 139 were set apart for direct recruitment and 34 for "recruitment by transfer". Note (1) of the Notification says : "1. The General Recruitment vacancies are subject to the rule of Special representation under Rule 10 of the Special Rules for A. P. State Judicial service and also Rule 22-A (2) of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service rules".

( 3 ) THERE is no need to refer to the other terms and clauses of the Notification. Out of 561 women candidates who appeared for the written examination, only 37 qualified themselves as against 47 vacancies in various groups earmarked for women. After interview, 31 women candidates were finally selected. Thus, for 11 vacancies reserved for women, candidates were not available. In mentioning the figure 11, we have not taken into account the unfilled vacancies of women in ST category as neither men nor women could come up to the level of selection in that category. It may be mentioned that by virtue of merit, some women candidates belonging to Backward Class groups were assigned o. C. category vacancies. Though initially in the select list sent by the High court to the Government for approval, 12 men candidates were shown to have been selected against the unfilled vacancies reserved for women, on receipt of letter dated 8-10-1997 from the Government requesting the High Court to prepare and forward the "communal roster following the rule of reservation as per G. O. 65 (G. A. S. D.) dated 15-2-1997," the High Court sent up a revised list of 118 direct recruits deleting the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document