Sharma, J. - (1.) The appellant's application for appointment as a District Munsif by the State of Andhra Pradesh in the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (briefly described as the ,Commission,), respondent No. 1, which the appellant challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by a writ petition. The learned single Judge allowed the prayer and directed the first respondent to consider the candidature of the appellant for the appointment in question. The respondents challenged the decision under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 22 of 1985. The appeal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed. We have granted leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution allowing the appellant to appeal against the said decision.
(2.) The appointment of District Munsifs is regulated by Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In response to an advertisement issued by the ,Commission, for filling up a large number of vacancies of District Munsifs by direct recruitment, the appellant applied. Subsequently a second advertisement was issued on 27-5-1984 with reference to vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, and the appellant made a second application. His. present claim is with respect to these reserved posts.
(3.) After passing the law Examination the appellant got himself enrolled as an Advocate on the rolls of the State Bar Council on 24-2-1977 and practised law till 31-3-1981. On 1-4-1981 he was appointed in the service of Hindustan Shipyard, an undertaking owned by the Government of India, and claims to have remained in charge of the legal cell. As stated earlier, he applied in pursuance of the second advertisement dated 27-5-1984 notified by the ,Commission,. In the opinion of the ,Commission, the appellant did not fulfil the necessary qualification fixed under the Rules, and was therefore ineligible for appointment.;