G. P. Mathur, J. - (1.) The issue raised in the Civil Appeals and Writ Petitions which have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is same and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification on 23-10-1996 for making appointments to the posts of District Munsiff and the relevant part of the notification which has a bearing on the controversy in dispute is reproduced below : "NOTIFICATION For appointment to the post of District Munsiffs. Applications are invited for 200 posts of District Munsiffs of which 27 by limited Recruitment-backlog vacancies and 173 by General Recruitment in the A.P. State Judicial Services. VACANCY POSITION : ********** ********** Note : 1. The General Recruitment vacancies are subject to the rule of Spl. Representation under Rule 10 of the Spl. Rules for A.P. State Judicial Service and also Rule 22(A)(2) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. 2. The High Court reserves the right to increase or decrease the number of vacancies after issue of this notification, if necessary." After a written examination was held, candidates were called for interview keeping in view the number of vacancies and the result was declared on 18-3-1997. On the basis of the merit list prepared, some appointments were initially made on 7-4-1998. Mohd. Siddiq Ali (appellant in C.A. No. 3006 of 2001) filed Writ Petition No. 35876 of 1998 challenging the selection and appointment of some women candidates and candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The writ petition was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court (B. Subhashan Reddy and Y.V. Narayana, JJ.) on 18-1-1999 and the order passed by the Court reads as under : "This writ petition challenges the women reservation in the matter of selection of Munsif Magistrates as also backlog for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. In so far as backlog of SC and ST candidates is concerned, it is a well settled law that such a backlog is permissible under the Constitution Scheme. In so far as women reservation is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 31-8-1998 in W.P. 18307/98 and batch had maintained women reservation on the ground of the same being not challenged and that challenge could not sustain in auxiliary proceedings. The Division Bench, however, has set aside the action regarding carry-forward in the matter of women candidates. Taking a clue from the judgment of the said Division Bench that the action in providing reservation to women was not challenged, this writ petition has been filed, but the same is hit by laches for the reason that the notification was issued far back in 1996, selection process went through and selections have been finalised and appointments have been made. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs." Civil Appeal No. 3006 of 2001 has been filed challenging the aforesaid order of the High Court.
(3.) Another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 32021 of 1998 was filed by S. Sreeramulu and D.D.V.S.N. Prasad challenging the same selection and appointment of women candidates. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench (P. Venkatarama Reddi and Bilal Nazki, JJ) on 2-12-1998 and the order passed by the Court reads as under : "We are not inclined at this distance of time to entertain this Writ Petition directed against the selection of candidates for the posts of District Munsiffs which was finalised long back and pursuant to which appointments orders were issued. That apart, on the basis of the information furnished by the panel counsel for the High Court, the 1st petitioner has no chance of selection even if his contention is accepted. The writ petition in so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, is dismissed as he has separate cause of action and he should have filed a separate writ petition. In fact, it is noticed that the affidavit is filed by the 1st petitioner only. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage." Civil Appeal No. 3007 of 2001 has been filed challenging the aforesaid order of the High Court.;