S. DASARADHARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant who is facing trial in S. C. 207 of 1993 on the file of II Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad- cum-Additional Designated Judge under terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (for short the TADA Act ) has filed writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of third respondent, Mr. K. Mahalaxmi Rao, as a Judge of the designated Court on the ground that it is contrary to Section 9 (6) of the TADA Act, which requires that the person before appointment as a Judge of a Designated court must have been immediately before such appointment a Sessions Judge or an additional Sessions Judge. Our learned brother dismissed the writ petition and against that order, this appeal has been filed

( 2 ) TO appreciate the point raised by the appellant, it is necessary to state a few facts which are not in dispute. The third respondent nas been promoted temporarily as District and Sessions Judge Grade II by G. O. Rt. No. 4131 dated 25-9-1992. On 2-11-1992, by G. O. Rt No. 4730, he was posted as Member, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad. By notification No. 82-3. Spl. dated 19-4-1994, while making postings and trans

Click Here to Read the rest of this document