S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner s application for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of District and sessions Judge, Grade-II in the Andhra pradesh State Higher Judicial Service pursuant to the notification calling for applications dated 2-8-1996, was rejected. His representation dated 11-11-1996 was also rejected and the same was communicated to him by the 2nd respondent in his Roc. No. 3608/96-B. Spl. dated 15-11-1996. The petitioner questions that rejection in this writ petition.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is now working as Assistant Public Prosecutor at kalwakurthy in Mahbubnagar District from 17-7-1996 under the control of Directorate of Prosecutor, Government of Andhra pradesh. He states that he is now actually undergoing training as Assistant Public prosecutor in the Andhra Pradesh Police academy at Hyderabad.

( 3 ) IN his affidavit in support of the writ petition he does not state that he is at present an advocate practising as such when he appl ied for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of District and Sessions Judge, grade-II. He states that he had been an advocate and practised as an advocate for more than seven years. According to him, he enrolled as an advocate on 27-3-1987 on the rolls of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and practised as an advocate at Nizamabad from27-3-1987 to 4-5-1994 /. e. , for a little more than seven years; he was selected and appointed as District Munsif by direct recruitment and served as such from 5-5-1994 to 16-7-1996 and also underwent the basic training course for district Munsiffs at Andhrapradesh Judicial academy from November, 1994 to March, 1995; and he resigned and was relieved from the said office on 16-7-1996 at his request. As already stated above, he has been selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor and working as such from the very next day from 17-7-1996. He forwarded his application dated 17-8-1996 pursuant to the notification dated 2-8-1996 (published on 7-8-1996 in the eenadu News Paper) through the proper channel to the Chief Secretary to the government of Andhra Pradesh. He states that he did not receive the hallticket for the written test scheduled to be held on 24-11-1996, and that he made enquiries in the 2nd respondent office on 8-11 -1996 about his hallticket, and that he was then told his application was rejected on 6-11-1996 and that the same was communicated to the address given by him in his application. The petitioner did not receive the same as he was undergoing training at the Andhra Pradesh police Academy. He then made a representation dated 11-11-1996 to permit him to appear for the written examination for the posts of District and Sessions Judge, grade-II. After referring to Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of U. P. (1) AIR 1966 SC 1987 and satya Narain Singh v. High Court of judicature, Allahabad (2) AIR 1985 SC 308, the petitioner stated as follows in that representation:". . . I most respectfully submit that I am not in Judicial Service on the date of application and it was sent through proper channel as per notification and I practised as an advocate for a period of seven years one month and seven days (i. e. , from27-3-1987tp4-5-1994)andhencei fulfilled the required qualifications and I may be provided an opportunity of getting appointment. It is therefore requested that your kind authority may be pleased to permit me to write the written examination forthe post of District and Sessions Judge, Grade-II in the ends of justice and equity. " this representation was addressed to the 2nd respondent. Through official memorandum dated 15-11-1996, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that "his request for permission to write the examination on 24-11-1996, has been considered by the High Court and the same is rejected".

( 4 ) FROM the facts narrated by the petitioner, it cannot be gainsaid that during the period he worked as District Munsi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document