The judgment emphasizes the importance of genuine public interest in filing petitions and the need for care and caution in entertaining public interest litigations, cautioning against abusing the forum for personal vendettas.

JUDGMENT

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. - The present petition challenging inter alia appointment of respondent No.5 as Standing Counsel in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, came up before learned single Judge, whovide his order, dtd. 31/1/2024, observed that the petition was in the form of a Public Interest Litigation and accordingly directed the matter to be posted before an appropriate Bench of this Court. The petitioner appearing in person is an Advocate by profession.

The present petition has been preferred challenging the appointment of respondent No.5 as Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in Andhra region (excluding Nellore and Visakhapatnam) in the High Court. The appointment of respondent No.5 is stated to be contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh Law Officers Appointment and Conditions of Service Instructions, 2000, and guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal.2016) 6 SCC 1 It is stated that respondent No.5 is not a regular practitioner at the High Court of A.P. and has not regularly been representing cases in this Court. It is stated that he cannot argue cases and does not have a good track record of exceptional performance, which would justify his appointment for a third term. Allegations have been reiterated regarding his inefficiency. Allegations have also been levelled against respondent No.5 which have the effect of tarnishing his reputation and integrity. It is further stated that respondent No.5 was earlier appointed for two terms 2004 -11 as Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations for appearance in the Tribunal. Subsequently, it is stated, he was appointed as Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the Andhra region (excluding Nellore and Visakhapatnam) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Rt.No.201, dtd. 2/8/2019 and further that his tenure has been extended recently vide G.O.Rt.No.234, dtd. 9/9/2022. This, according to the petitioner, is impermissible, as he already served for nine years and got another term of appointment for three years, which was thus contrary to the instructions on this subject.

It is stated that the appointment of respondent No.5 as counsel, effected vide G.O.Rt.No.201, dtd. 2/8/2019, was challenged in W.P. No.20349 of 2019 by an advocate, as a party-in- person. It is stated that while the petition was pending adjudication, the said Advocate was appointed as Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'APSRTC') and that subsequently the case was dismissed for non-appearance of the said Advocate. It is stated that this was nothing but a case of a quid pro quo. What is further stated in para No.10 is reproduced hereunder:

"10...........When the appointment for the third term itself is in utter violation and disregard of law and was made controversial, his appointment and recommendation for appointment in the very same post for the fourth term are creating suspicion of corrupt practice for personal gains for Respondent No.4. So inquiry has to be conducted on both Respondents No.4 and 5 by an independent investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (for short C.B.I.) as per Apex Court Judgment in State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571."

The petitioner appearing in person, in the light of the aforementioned facts, would urge that not only the selection process but also the appointment of respondent No.5 was unjust and arbitrary and in clear violation of clause 7 and 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers Appointment and Conditions of Service Instructions, 2000, framed by the Government and therefore, in the above circumstances, prayed for setting the operation of G.O.Rt.No.234, dtd. 9/9/2022, and as also prayed for a mandamus to respondent No.6 - the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct inquiry into the illegal activi