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 petitions, unless otherwise mentioned.

Substantial portion of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which runs to 27 pages, is devoted to narrate the process of appointment of a person as Judge of High Court and the basic qualifications that are required to be possessed by such person, for being recommended for appointment to that Office.

The petitioner states that on 08.09.2009, the Chief Justice of the High Court of A.P., the 3rd respondent herein, has selected and recommended the names of four advocates from the High Court, including the names of the incumbents for appointment of the Judges of High Court and that objections were raised from various circles against the recommendation of the names of incumbents. The petitioner is also said to have joined some advocates in submitting representation to the Chief Justice of India, with a request to reject the recommendation.

The petitioner filed W.P.No.264 of 2010 before this Court, in relation to the process referred to above. It was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, on being informed that the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent on 08.09.2009 were returned by the Government of India. According to the petitioner, one day after the writ petition was dismissed, the 3rd respondent forwarded a list of 14 advocates, including that of respondent No.5 and the same is said to have not been agreed to, by the State of Andhra Pradesh, mainly on the ground that the names, which were rejected earlier were included in the fresh recommendation. The petitioner filed W.P (Civil) No.314 of 2011 before the Supreme Court challenging the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent on 29.04.2011 for appointment of 14 judges. The said writ petition was dismissed, in view of the order passed in another writ petition on the same subject-matter.

The petitioner submits that the panel forwarded by the 3rd respondent on 29.04.2011 was returned/rejected by the Chief Justice of India and that the efforts made by the petitioner to know the reasons did not fructify. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the unfavourable reaction from the Supreme Court, and the Central Government, the 3rd respondent, has once again, recommended the names of the incumbents along with the name of another advocate, for appointment of Judge of High Court of A.P., and the same cannot be sustained in law.

After enlisting the basic tenets and the characteristics that are specific to the office of the Judge of High Court, the petitioner submits that the incumbents do not possess them. Extensive reference is made to the proceedings that ensued in the matrimonial matters of the 5th respondent in PIL.No.227 of 2012. It is pleaded that those and other relevant matters were not taken into account, while recommending the na