N.L.UNTWALIA - (1.) IN this appeal by Special Leave we are once again called upon to lay down the meaning and scope of Article 233 of the Constitution of INdia relating to the appointment of District Judges. This Article along with other Articles in Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution came up for consideration and was interpreted by this Court on several occasions in the past yet, a Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgment under appeal felt persuaded to take a wholly erroneous view as to the meaning of the Article and committed a serious error in the application of the principles of law settled by this Court to the facts of the instant case.
(2.) WE shall state the facts in a narrow compass shorn off unnecessary details. On 3-1-1972 the Government of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No. 1 was requested by the High Court, respondent No. 2, to take necessary steps "for filling up six vacancies by notifying six posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II for direct recruitment." By a D. O. letter dated 14-9-1972 the first respondent informed the second respondent that the six vacancies were being notified for direct recruitment. They were actually notified in the Gazette of that date. With the approval of the High Court, an advertisement was published on 1-8-1972 in the Deccan Chronicle. The total number of applications received in response to the advertisement was 381. Twenty six applications were found to be not in order and rejected. The remaining 355 candidates were called by the High Court for interview by the Selection Committee of the High Court on various dates. Shri A. Panduranga Rao, the sole appellant in this Appeal was one of the candidates interviewed on 14-6-1973. The High Court eventually made its recommendations in its D. O. letter dated 13-7-1973 recommending in order of merit six persons "as most suitable candidates from among the applicants, for being appointed as District and Sessions Judges, Grade II." This letter was written by the Registrar of the High Court as directed "by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, and the Hon'ble Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court," The appellant's name was the fifth amongst the six names recommended. Although it is not very relevant to say so, just to complete the link in the chain of relevant events, it may, be stated here that the recommendations made by the High Court seemed to have leaked out. Whoever might have been responsible for this leakage it was all the same a very unfortunate thing. This led the Bar Association Civil City Court. Hyderabad and the High Court Bar Association to pass certain resolutions and to send certain memoranda to the Government even to the extent of making some adverse comments against some of the persons recommended by the High Court for appointment. On receipt of the same Government wrote a D. O. letter to the High Court on 24-7-1973 expressing surprise at the leakage of secret information but at the same time inviting the High Court to send its comments. The High Court sent a detailed reply and comments in its D. O. letter dated 26-7-1973 pointing out that the leakage of the secret information could not be possible at the High Court end. It is not necessary for us to advert to the comments or resolutions of the Bar Association or the views of the High Court expressed in its letter dated 26-7-1974.
(3.) WE now come to the relevant letters in question. A. D. D. letter dated 26-7-1973 was written by the Government to the High Court with reference to the latter's letter of recommendation dated 13-7-1973. WE may point out here that this letter dated 26-7-1973 was written by the Government without any reference to, and in all probability, before the receipt of the High Court's letter dated 26-7-l973 in reply to the Government's of 24-7-1973. In the Government's letter dated 26-7-1973 attention of the High Court was invited to Instruction 12(5) of the Secretariat instructions and a request was made "to send the list of persons whom the High Court considered to have reasonable claims to the appointment or suitable for the posts of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II along with remarks regarding the qualifications and claims of the several persons in the list". It may be stated here that as usual the correspondence was going on between the Chief Secretary on behalf of the Government and the Registrar on behalf of the High Court. The latter in reply to former's letter dated 26-7-1973 sent the following reply on 1-8-1973: "Your letter reached me on 28-7-1973. With reference to your above letter dated 26-7-1973. I have been directed to forward the entire list of the candidates interviewed by the High Court, with the remarks obtained by them. The High Court has no further remarks to offer. All the applications of the candidates sent by you are returned separately." Thereupon the Government wrote D. O. letter dated 30-11-1973 to the Chief Justice of the High Court intimating that Government had decided to select the six candidates mentioned in that letter for filling up the six vacancies. Out of the persons so selected two were those who had been recommended by the High Court along with four others in its letter dated 13-7-1973. They were serials 1 and 4. Four out of the six were not appointed and in their place, as it appears, treating the entire list of 263 as a list recommended by the High Court in order of merit persons at serials 9. 12. 13 and 16 were selected by the Government for appointment. And finally orders appointing the six persons so selected were issued on 7-12-1973. Several writ applications were filed in the High Court to challenge the appointments made by the Government. We are in this appeal concerned with the judgment of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition No. 895 of 1974 filed by the appellant to challenge the appointment of only tour viz. respondents 3 to 6 and the non-appointment of the appellant. His case was that respondents 3 to 6 were appointed in violation of the constitutional provision contained in Article 233 and that he was not appointed on grounds which are unsustainable in law. The High Court has taken the view that the appointments have been made by the Government consistent with the requirement of Article 233(2) out of the entire list of 263 recommended by the High Court. The appellant's claim on merits for appointment to the post has not found favour with the High Court. In the view which we take as to the violation of Article 233 in this case, we would not like, nor is it necessary to do so, to examine the claim of the appellant for appointment in one of the six vacancies.;