Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Ramasubramanian and J. Uma Devi, JJ.
Lanka Annapurnasri and Others – Appellants
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6216 of 2017
Decided On : 03-03-2017
Constitution of India - Article 234, 309 - Petitioners who were all appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors during the period and who were appointed temporarily under G.O. Rt. Law Department, dated as Junior Civil Judges, have come up with the present writ petition challenging the proposed action of the High Court in seeking to repatriate them to the Department of Prosecution as Assistant Public Prosecutors - Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners - Learned Standing Counsel for the High Court takes notice - Public Prosecutor during the period In the year - Petitioners were appointed temporarily under dated as Junior Civil Judges for regularisation of their services, in the post of Junior Civil Judges - But the said representation was rejected by the High Court and the same was communicated by the proceedings dated - We do not know whether the petitioners have challenged the said decision - Be that as it may the immediate provocation for the petitioners to come up with the present writ petition as stated in para-4 of the Affidavit in support of the writ petition, is that they are now being repatriated as Assistant Public Prosecutors and that they have reliable information that they should comply with the repatriation order latest - Petitioners claim that by virtue of long service as Junior Civil Judges – Held, Government employee will stand automatically suspended, only under contingencies namely when he is appointed outside the regular line from the date of his relief when he is resigned or relieved from a post to join in a different post to which he is selected by direct recruitment and when he is transferred from one department to another on request or otherwise by way of departmental transfers - Government employee will automatically get suspended and he will acquire a provisional lien in the new department under - It is only if the contingencies stipulated - Petitioners neither got their lien in the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors (Grade-II) suspended or terminated nor did they acquire any lien on the post of Junior Civil Judges, so as to invoke F.R. 14A. As stated earlier the petitioners had several opportunities during the past 13 years to participate in an examination conducted in accordance with the scheme provided in the Schedule to the Special Rules, for the consideration of their cases for recruitment by the method of transfer as against the 10% quota. The petitioners could not get selected in those selections - Petitioners have no right to continue and their claim for regularisation having already been rejected, the petitioners are liable to go back to their parent department - Petitioners are not sent home but are sent only to their parent departmen - Fact that the petitioners may have to get back from the Bench to the Bar and may have to address others with honourable prefixes despite being addressed so for the past years cannot be a point in their favour - petitions shall stand closed.
1. The petitioners who were all appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors (Grade-II) during the period 1997-1999 and who were appointed temporarily under G.O. Rt. No. 182, Law Department, dated 03.02.2004, as Junior Civil Judges, have come up with the present writ petition challenging the proposed action of the High Court in seeking to repatriate them to the Department of Prosecution as Assistant Public Prosecutors. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court takes notice.
2. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor (Grade-II) during the period 1997-1999. In the year 2004, the petitioners were appointed temporarily under G.O. Rt. No. 182, dated 03.02.2004, as Junior Civil Judges. The petitioners have been continuing in the post of Junior Civil Judges for the past nearly 13 years.
3. Incidentally, the petitioners made a representation on 21.9.2013 for regularisation of their services, in the post of Junior Civil Judges. But the said representation was rejected by the High Court and the same was communicated by the proceedings dated 21.4.2014. We do not know whether the petitioners have challenged the said decision. Be that as it may, the immediate provocation for the petitioners to come up with the present writ petition, as stated in para-4 of the Affidavit in support of the writ petition, is that they are now being repatriated as Assistant Public Prosecutors and that they have reliable information that they should comply with the repatriation order latest by 23.3.2017. The petitioners claim that by virtue of long service as Junior Civil Judges for 13 years, coupled with their service record being appraised as "good" they are entitled to continue as Junior Civil Judges. The contention of the petitioners is that an appointment which continued for 13 years cannot be treated as temporary and that the repatriation strikes at a legitimate expectation that they have entertained.
4. We have carefully considered the above submissions. As a matter of fact, we had an occasion to consider the case of another Assistant Public Prosecutor, similarly placed as the petitioners herein, who has now been retired upon attaining the age of 58 years. We have considered in the said case extensively, the different types of appointments made under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 1962, the changes brought forth to the conditions of service of the holders of those posts by the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and the rights of candidates like the petitioners herein vis-a-vis the Rules.
5. The Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service was originally constituted way back on 01.4.1958, to comprise of 3 categories of Judicial Officers, namely, (1) Senior Civil Judges, (2) Junior Civil Judges and (3) Judicial Magistrates of Second Class. Though the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service was constituted with the above 3 categories of posts way back on 01.4.1958, the Special Rules governing the service were issued for the first time only under G.O. Ms. No. 2207, Home Department, dated 04.12.1962. These Rules, known as Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, were issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 234 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
6. The scheme of these Rules, to the extent they are necessary for the disposal of the present case is as follows:
(i) Rule 3 of the Rules stipulated that the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service shall consist of 3 categories of officers, namely, Category-I--Senior Civil Judges, Category-II--Junior Civil Judges and Category-III--Judicial Magistrates of Second Class.
(ii) Rule 4 of the Special Rules prescribed the method of appointment to all the 3 categories of posts. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 indicated that the appointment to the category of Junior Civil Judges shall be by direct recruitment. However, the proviso to Rule 4(2) st
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
