ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

Heard Sri G. Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

2. The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the Notification for recruitment of Legal Aid Lawyers in Legal and Defence Counsel Office through proceedings bearing Rc.No.49- E1/APSLSA/LADCS/2022/ dated 26.08.2022 for the posts of Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel as illegal, improper and incorrect.

3. The averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, are as under:-

(a) The petitioners are the practising advocates in Guntur District Court for the last more than twelve years and also members of Guntur Bar Association. It is said that the petitioners are serving poor people and also giving service to the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur as Panel Lawyers, Retainer Lawyers and also Legal Aid Counsels for the past ten years.

(b) It is stated that on 26.08.2022, the State Legal Services Authority, Amaravathi, who is third respondent herein has issued a Notification, for the posts as mentioned above and invited applications for engagement as full time Legal Aid Lawyers in Legal and Defence counsel Office in nine districts of the State under State Legal Services Authority, which includes Guntur District, with a condition that 05.09.2022 is that last day for receiving applications and after due date, the same shall not be considered. (c) It is stated that in the said Notification there is a condition that photo copies of judgments in five Sessions cases and photo copies of at least five Cross-Examinations in Sessions Cases for the post of Chief/Deputy Legal Aid Defence counsel should be submitted. However, there is no condition with regard to submission of judgments and cross-examinations in respect of Assistant Legal Aid Counsel. Ten days time was granted to submit those documents from the date of notification, but the petitioners could not submit judgments and copies of cross-

examinations done in Sessions Cases.

(d) It is further stated that without following the Rules and Guidelines and without even intimating whether their applications were considered or rejected the fourth respondent unilaterally selected some other advocates, who never discharged any type of legal services. Subsequently, on 21.09.2022 the petitioners submitted a representation to fourth respondent, but so far no intimation received from the fourth respondent. Aggrieved the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. Though, various grounds are raised, the petitioners herein only submits that if an opportunity is given to participate in the interview they would have placed before the authority, the cases done by them. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that though the petitioners have conducted Sessions Cases, but they have conducted the same along with their Seniors, whose name was alone shown in the Judgment and their names did not figure in the judgment copies. Hence, they could not submit copies of judgment of the cases done by them.

5. On the other hand, Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that the conditions stipulated in the application form which are based on the Guidelines given by the NALSA, would show that copies of judgments in five Sessions Cases, represented as Defense Lawyer, for the post of Chief/Deputy Legal Aid Defense Counsel and copies of at least five cross-examinations in Sessions Cases, for the post of Chief/Deputy Legal Aid Defense Counsel have to be furnished. Since the names of the petitioners did not figure in the judgments as counsel doing the cross- examination independently, their applications have been rejected.

6. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners herein failed to satisfy the requirements of the notification by submitting crucial documents, which would establish