- (1.) These two petitions have been filed by Ilindra Bhaskaracharyulu Gupta and J. Pandurangarao respectively under Art. 32 of the Constitution and in substance, they challenge the validity of one of the rules framed by the Governor of Andhra in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Art. 234 and the proviso to Art. 309 in respect of the Andhra Judicial Service. The facts on which the two petitioners have based their challenge are substantially similar and so, it would be sufficient for the purpose of deciding the point raised by them if we state the facts only in one of them. We will accordingly state the facts in petition No. 355 of 1961. Our conclusion on the merits of the point raised by this petition will govern the decision of the other petition No. 1 of 1962.
(2.) The petitioner J. Pandurangarao belongs to a family which has been settled in the district of Guntur in Andhra Pradesh for several generations past. The petitioner himself was born, brought up and educated in the said district. He passed his B. A examination from the Andhra Christian College at Guntur in 1950 Thereafter, he took his LL.B. Degree from the Nagpur University in 1952 and in 1954 he got himself enrolled as an Advocate of the Mysore High Court. Having thus been enrolled as an Advocate of the Mysore High Court he set up his practice in the Court in Tenali in Guntur district and has been practising there ever since. In January, 1961 the respondent No.1, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, invited applications for selection for the posts of District Munsiffs in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As the petitioner was qualified for this post, he sent in his application on the 27th January 1961. Respondent No.1, however rejected his application on the 25th September 1961 on the ground that he did not fulfil the condition set out in paragraph 4A (1) of the Commission's notification published on the 17th December 1960, by which applications had been invited. The said paragraph reads as follows : "That at the time when the petitioner applies : 1. he is practicing as an Advocate of the High Court; 2. he has been actually practicing in Courts of Civil or Criminal jurisdiction in India for a period not less than three years." According to respondent No.1, the petitioner satisfied the second condition but did not satisfy the first since he had not been practicing as an Advocate of the Andhra High Court. In his present petition, the petitioner alleges that respondent No.1, has misconstrued the requirement prescribed by para 4 A(1) when it assumed that the expression "the High Court" in that condition refers to the Andhra High Court and not to all the High Courts in India. In the alternative the petitioner's contention is that if the expression "the High Court" means the Andhra High Court, then the rule prescribing the said requirement is ultra vires. Inasmuch as it contravenes the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. It is on these two alternative grounds that the petitioner challenges the decision of respondent No. 1 and it is only if the first ground fails that the petitioner questions the validity of the impugned rule.
(3.) To this petition, the petitioner has joined respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary. On behalf of the respondents, it is urged that the construction sought to be placed by the petitioner on the relevant clause in the notification is erroneous. The expression "the High Court" in the context means the Andhra High Court and no other. It is also urged that even on that construction the requirement of the notification itself which is based on a corresponding rule is valid.;