D. Peri Reddy & Others v. Government Of A.P & Another

(1) The first and third petitioners are presently working as section officers, whereas the second petitioner is working as court master in the high court service. They are law graduates, and have passed the departmental tests required to be passed for appointment by transfer as district munsifs. As there was no direct recruitment to the category of district munsifs, a number of vacancies remained unfilled and the petitioners were appointed as temporary district munsifs and they worked as such for some time. Later they were reverted for want of vacancies and were sent back to the parent department.

(2) Subsequently when vacancies of district munsifs arose, the high court prepared a panel of persons to be appointed, having been satisfied with their performance earlier as district munsifs on temporary basis and included the names of the petitioners in the said panel. The government appointed the persons recommended by the high court in the panel, excepting the petitioners, as district munsifs. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that they were not appointed as they crossed the age of 45 years. Accordingly, g. O. Rt. No. 1965 home (courts - c) department dated 12 - 7 - 9c was issued appointing others in the panel as district munsifs on temporary basis. The petitioners question the action of the first respondent in not appointing them as district munsifs, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india.

(3) In the counter - affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioners are over - aged as they crossed 45 years and therefore, they are ineligible to be appointed and they were rightly left out from the government order.

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioners, sri panduranga rao submitted that under rule 12 of the a. P. State judicial service rules, one must not have completed 45 years of age for being appointed as district munsif by transfer. According to note (2) of the said rule, the age limit prescribed in the table and sub - rules (c) (d) and (e) , shall be raised uniformly by a period, not exceeding the period during which recruitment to the posts fell due, but was not made. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that by virtue of note (2) , a peripd of three years should be added to the age limit of 45 years prescribed in the table, inasmuch as recruitment to the posts of district munsifs fell due in 1987, but was not made till the year 1990 when temporary appointments were made. Therefore, petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to be appointed, though they have completed the age of 45 years, applying note (2) of rule 12.

(5) In the case of the first petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he belongs to a backward community, and sub - rule (c) of rule 12, is applicable and the maximum age limit prescribed for other communities, shall be raised uniformly by five years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the aboriginal tribes in the scheduled areas or the backward classes specified in sub rule (5 - a) of rule 2 of the rules, and he is entitled to five years more than other petitioners and consequently, he is entitled to be appointed at any time till he completes the age of 53 years. The contention of the learned counsel is not supported by pleadings in the affidavit of the first petitioner and respondents had no opportunity to meet this point and cannot be considered.

(6) The learned advocate - general fairly submitted that determination of age in the manner laid down in notes (1) and (2) and the proviso to rule 12, is also applicable in the case of temporary appointments and are not confined only to permanent appointments. Explanation to rule 11 reads as follows :

"determination of age in the manner laid down in notes (1) and (2) and the provisos under clause (b) of rule 12 shall also be applicable to the temporary appointment under this clause."

Explanation to rule 11 dealing with temporary promotions to the post of subordinate judge from among the district munsifs and appointments to the posts of district munsifs under clause (2) of rule 11 and notes (1) and (2) , including the proviso to rule 12, are applicable and the period elapsed since the recruitment to the posts was last made and the period during which recruitment had fallen due, but was not made, should be added to the age limit prescribed in the table of sub - rules (c) , (d) and (e) of rule 12.

(7) It is accordingly held that in the case of temporary appointments of district munsifs, note (2) of rule 12 is applicable and the period during which recruitment fell due, but was not made should be added to the age limit of 45 years prescribed. It is stated that age limit is now raised to 48 years from the earlier age limit of 45 years. This rise in age is applicable to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, all the petitioners are eligible to be appointed as temporary district munsifs from out of the panel sent up by the high court. It has to be held that the petitioners were wrongly omitted on misconstruing the relevant rules from being appointed as district munsifs on temporary basis. The only ground on which they were not appointed was that they were over - aged.

(8) Since the petitioners were already included in the panel sent up by the high court for appointment as temporary district munsifs, there is no need for the high court to again send a fresh panel for appointment of the petitioners as temporary district munsifs. The first respondent is therefore directed to appoint the petitioners as district munsifs on a temporary basis in the existing vacancies, treating them as recommended by the high court by virtue of the earlier panel in which their names were recommended by the high court, and they shall continue to work as district munsifs so long as the necessity of appointing persons as district munsifs on temporary basis exists.

(9) With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.