L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

Through separate judgments, both of us have arrived at the same conclusions viz., that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

We accordingly hold that the writ petitions be dismissed.

Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.

Order:

The petitioner is an Advocate, practicing in the High Court of A.P. He filed these writ petitions in the form of a Public Interest Litigation, for a Writ of Mandamus in the form of a declaration to the effect that the selection and recommendation of the name of the 5th respondent in each of the writ petitions (for short, 'the incumbents') by respondents 2 to 4 for appointment as Judges of High Court, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 217 of the Constitution of India and for consequential order to set aside the selection and recommendation. The ground pleaded by the petitioner for claiming the relief is that respondents 2 to 4 did not take the relevant factors provided for under Article 217 of the Constitution of India into account, in the process of consultation. Since the parties to both writ petitions are common, except for the 5th respondent, reference to the parties, shall be deemed to those in both writ pe