S RENUKA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
March 21,2002
S.RENUKA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
R S MITTAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]M S AHLAWAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SURAJ SINGH DHAKAD VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-8-91] [REFERRED TO]KONA SRINIVAS VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
SOLANKI J SHAMJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALABEN J GAMETI VS. CHIEF MATROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA DWIVEDI VS. ADMINISTRATOR NAGAR MAHAPALIKA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
AMARNATH VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2002-9-238] [REFERRED TO]
KANUBHAI RAMSINGBHAI HATHILA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-1-323] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
D YANGFO VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADSEH [LAWS(GAU)-2005-9-65] [REFFERRED TO 11.]
RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-3-105] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BADRI PRASAD [LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-20] [REFERRED]
PODILI SIVA MURALI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
OMWATI VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2007-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2012-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
THE GOVERNING BODY OF BANKINM SARDAR COLLEGE AND ANR. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
A ESWARAMOORTHY VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-596] [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH CHAND AND ORS. VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIPAD GANPATI BHAT VS. REGISTRAR TILAK MAHARASHTRA VIDYAPEETH PUNE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-2-105] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY RATHORE VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV PRASHAR VS. NARESH DUBEY AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-318] [REFERRED]
V ARUMUGAPERUMAL VS. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-160] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR KANNAUJIYA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERAJ KUMAR DUBEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-154] [REFERRED TO.]
SOUMAN KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. YOGENDRA KUMAR PAL [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH RAIKWAR VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR SAXENA VS. CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PERSONAL DEPARTMENT STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
SAJID KHAN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
WOMEN S EDUCATION SOCIETY NAGPUR VS. NAGPUR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ RANI SEKHRI VS. U P GOVT [LAWS(ALL)-1954-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHKAR SINGH RAWAT VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2010-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJESH SETHI [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
KODAKARA FARMERS SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD VS. NEENA [LAWS(KER)-2010-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
NAJAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2021-12-116] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL JANHVIBEN JAYANTILAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-1476] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER U P POWER CORPORATION LTD VS. BHARAT SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2004-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST PRINCIPAL VS. PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA OF SRI MAHENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2005-2-218] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASIS DUTTA VS. VISVA BHARATI UNIVERCITY [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN VS. MANJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA [LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-253] [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL DHANAJI SURYAWANSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. RAJKUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2006-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The facts relevant for the purposes of this writ petition are as follows :
The State of Andhra Pradesh established Family Courts and Mahila Courts. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh desired that these Courts be manned by women. However,in the cadre of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II there were not enough women Judges who could be posted in these Courts. Therefore the High Court requested the State to create additional posts. On 3rd September, 1996 the State Government issued Office Memorandum No. 172 sanctioning 10 additional posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II. The relevant portion of the said Memorandum reads as follows :
"The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has informed in his letter 6th read above that six Family Courts in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge were sanctioned at Visakhapatnam, Hyderbad, Vijayawada, Kurnool, Tirupathi and Warangal in the G.O. 3rd read above and another Family Court at Secunderabad was sanctioned in the G.O. 5th read above. The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has further stated that the High Court considers it necessary to post lady District Judges to preside over the Family Courts in the State with a view to protect and preserve that institution of marriage and to promote the welfare of the children as stipulated in Rule4(4) (a) and (b) of the Family Court Act, 1984, but due to non-availability of women judicial officers in the cadre of District Judges, the High Court is unable to post Lady District Judges to the Family Courts. The Registrar has also stated that Mahila Courts with lady presiding Officers at Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam were sanctioned exclusively to deal with offences against women, in the G.Os. first and fourth read above. The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has finally requested that 10 posts of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II, be sanctioned in addition to the existing cadre strength, exclusively to recruit the women candidates by direct recruitment, for being posted to the Family Courts and Mahila Courts in the State.
2. Government after careful consideration of the matter hereby sanction in relaxation of Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the A.P. State Higher Judicial Service, 10 posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II, in addition to the existing cadre strength, exclusively for women candidates to be recruited by direct recruitment."
(2.)Pursuant to this Memorandum the High Court issued an Advertisement inviting applications from women candidates for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II. The advertisement specified that five posts would be available for open competition, two posts for the Scheduled Castes, one post for the Scheduled Tribe, one post for Backward Class Group A and one post for Backward Class Group B.
(3.)Pursuant to this advertisement 261 candidates applied for the posts. The High Court called 210 candidates for a written examination. 180 candidates participated in the written examination. The High Court then called 35 candidates for oral interviews. The oral interviews were conducted on 20th and 21st of March, 1997. A panel of 10 candidates was prepared. The 10 candidates were asked to furnish further information relating to their legal practice. After receipt of the information the High Court rejected one name. A panel of nine candidates was then approved at Full Court meetings held on 17th September, 1997 and again on 17th October,1997. This panel consisted of seven candidates from the open category, one from Scheduled Caste and one from Backward Class Group D. The High Court then sent the names of the nine candidates to the State Government for appointment.
The State of Andhra Pradesh established Family Courts and Mahila Courts. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh desired that these Courts be manned by women. However,in the cadre of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II there were not enough women Judges who could be posted in these Courts. Therefore the High Court requested the State to create additional posts. On 3rd September, 1996 the State Government issued Office Memorandum No. 172 sanctioning 10 additional posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II. The relevant portion of the said Memorandum reads as follows :
"The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has informed in his letter 6th read above that six Family Courts in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge were sanctioned at Visakhapatnam, Hyderbad, Vijayawada, Kurnool, Tirupathi and Warangal in the G.O. 3rd read above and another Family Court at Secunderabad was sanctioned in the G.O. 5th read above. The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has further stated that the High Court considers it necessary to post lady District Judges to preside over the Family Courts in the State with a view to protect and preserve that institution of marriage and to promote the welfare of the children as stipulated in Rule4(4) (a) and (b) of the Family Court Act, 1984, but due to non-availability of women judicial officers in the cadre of District Judges, the High Court is unable to post Lady District Judges to the Family Courts. The Registrar has also stated that Mahila Courts with lady presiding Officers at Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam were sanctioned exclusively to deal with offences against women, in the G.Os. first and fourth read above. The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has finally requested that 10 posts of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II, be sanctioned in addition to the existing cadre strength, exclusively to recruit the women candidates by direct recruitment, for being posted to the Family Courts and Mahila Courts in the State.
2. Government after careful consideration of the matter hereby sanction in relaxation of Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the A.P. State Higher Judicial Service, 10 posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II, in addition to the existing cadre strength, exclusively for women candidates to be recruited by direct recruitment."
(2.)Pursuant to this Memorandum the High Court issued an Advertisement inviting applications from women candidates for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II. The advertisement specified that five posts would be available for open competition, two posts for the Scheduled Castes, one post for the Scheduled Tribe, one post for Backward Class Group A and one post for Backward Class Group B.
(3.)Pursuant to this advertisement 261 candidates applied for the posts. The High Court called 210 candidates for a written examination. 180 candidates participated in the written examination. The High Court then called 35 candidates for oral interviews. The oral interviews were conducted on 20th and 21st of March, 1997. A panel of 10 candidates was prepared. The 10 candidates were asked to furnish further information relating to their legal practice. After receipt of the information the High Court rejected one name. A panel of nine candidates was then approved at Full Court meetings held on 17th September, 1997 and again on 17th October,1997. This panel consisted of seven candidates from the open category, one from Scheduled Caste and one from Backward Class Group D. The High Court then sent the names of the nine candidates to the State Government for appointment.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.