ORDER :- Writ Petn. No. 216 of 1955 : This is an application for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the, Andhra Public Service Commission to entertain petitioners application for appointment as District Munsif and to restrain the said Public Service Commission from finalising the selection of candidates for appointment as District Munsifs till his application is considered on its merits.

2. The Andhra Public Service Commission at Kurnool, by a notification dated 19-11-54 invited applications for the post of District Munsifs in the Andhra State Judicial Service to be filled by direct recruitment. According to para 5 of the notification, an applicant must satisfy the commission.

(A) that at the time when he applies (i) he is practising as an Advocate of the High Court, (ii) he has been actually practising in Courts of Civil or Criminal jurisdiction in India for a period of not less than three years.

(E) that on 1st July 1951 he had not completed the age of 32 years i.e. that he was born on or after 2nd July 1919.

3. The petitioner is a graduate of the Andhra University, having passed the B.A. degree examination in 1943. He passed the LL.B. degree examination of the Bombay University in 1945 and the M.A. degree examination of the Bombay University in 1947. He was enrolled as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court on 14-2-1950. He set up practice at Masulipatam and has been practising in the Courts of the District and Sessions Judge and Subordinate Judge and other civil and criminal courts in the Krishna District. Pursuant to the notification issued by the Andhra Public Service Commission, he submitted his application on 20-12-1954.

He received a communication from the Andhra Public Service Commission on 15-4-1955 to the effect that his application had been rejected as he did not satisfy the conditions announced in para 5(A)(i) of the notification i.e. he was not practising as an Advocate of the Andhra High Court. The petitioner contends that he was duly qualified to apply for the post and that the order of the Commission, rejecting his application, was illegal. 4. Mr. E. Venkatesam, learned counsel for the petitioners, raised before us two contentions :

(i) that the condition laid down in para 5(a)(i) of the notification is complied with if a candidate is an Advocate of any High Court in India;

(ii) if it be construed to refer only to the High Court of Andhra the said clause would be void as infringing the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. The first argument turns upon the construction of para 5(a)(i) of the notification : Para 5(A)(i) reads : "that at the time when he applies (i) he is practising as an advocate of the High Court". The short question is whether "the High Court" in that clause refers to the Andhra High Court or to any High Court in India. If the intention of the commission was to enable any person practising as an advocate of any High Court to apply as a candidate, they would have specifically stated so. The use of the definite article "the" is a pointer to the contrary and the particular High Court they meant could be ascertained only by considering the entire notification and also the rules under which that notification was issued.

The Governor of Andhra, in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 234 and the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, made special rules in respect of the Andhra State Judicial Service. Rule 2(2)(b), in defining "appointing authority, says "in the case of promotion of a District Munsif as a Subordinate Judge, the High Court". Here, the High Court obviously must mean the Andhra High Court for the simple reason that the other High Courts have no power to promote a District Munsif serving in the Andhra State.

In Rule 4 under the heading "appointments", Translators of the High Court are made eligible for appointment to the service by transfer. High Court here also must mean the Andhra High Court. In the case of direct recruitment, Rule 12(b) prescribes the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document