ORDER (Per V. Eswaraiah, J.)

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Registrar (Vigilance)/lst respondent in W.P.23719/2008 filed this review petition under Rule-24 of the Writ Rules read with Section 1140fCPC to review the order of this Court dated 26-03-2009 in W.P.23719 of 2008.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this review petition is whether it can be said that the review petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, and if so, whether there are any grounds made out for review of the order of this Court.

3. The review petition is maintainable under Rule-24 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 read with Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code if the review petitioner discovers new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or for any other sufficient reason.

Unless a mistake has been crept in or an error is apparent on the face of the record is made out, it is not open for the aggrieved person to obtain a review of the order made 40 against him and he cannot apply for the I review of the judgment.

4. The review petitioner seek to review the order of the Court dated 26-03-2009 passed in W.P.23719 of 2008 on the ground that this Court committed an error in directing the appointment to the posts of District Judges in the ratio of 25:25:50 percent with reference to the cadre strength and not with reference to the vacancies arising after the new Rules came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2007. It is contended that the ratio among the feeder category to the posts of District Judges in the ratio of 25:25:50 of the cadre strength by way of direct recruitment; recruitment by transfer on the basis of merit through departmental competitive examination (accelerated recruitment by transfer) and; recruitment by transfer from among the Senior Civil Judges respectively is introduced for the first time, as such, the ratio is made applicable only to the vacancies sought to be filled up which arose after the new Rules came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2007. The operative directions in so far as 50% of the cadre strength to be filled up by recruitment by transfer from among the senior civil judges is unwarranted and the said direction is not in accordance with law, particularly, against the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others (1) in Civil Appeal No.1867 of 2006 dated 04-01-2007.

5. It is further stated that the cadre strength of the District Judges including the temporary and permanent is only 163 and the total officers working in the cadre of the District Judges are 178 which includes deputation to ex-cadre posts and vacancies arose due to deputation are only temporary vacancies which cannot be filled either by direct recruitment or promoting the officers in the cadre of senior civil judges, since further appointments would increase the cadre strength. Thus, it is contended that the said direction constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. The District Judges working in the cadre posts are in excess of the sanctioned strength of the District Judges i.e. 163 at present and therefore, the direction issued by this Court to notify the vacancies in the cadre of the District Judges in the aforesaid ratio even in respect of temporary vacancies (ex-cadre posts) is against the guidelines of the Supreme Court issued in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others (1 supra).

6. It is further contended that when the notification to fill up 13 posts in the cadre of District Judges by way of direct recruitment vide notification dated 07-04-2007 and corrigendum to the notification issued on 28-07-2007, the A.P. State Higher Judicial Services Rules 2007 were not notified, but they were not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document