The Registrar has also stated that Mahila Courts with Lady presiding Officers at Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam were sanctioned exclusively to deal with offences against women, in the G.Os.
180 candidates participated in the written examination.
A panel of 10 candidates was prepared.
A panel of nine candidates was then approved at Full Court meetings held on 17th September, 1997 and again on 17th October, 1997.
The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has further stated that the High Court companysiders it necessary to post lady District Judges to preside over the Family Courts in the State with a view to protect and preserve that institution of marriage and to promote the welfare of the children as stipulated in Rule 4 4 a and b of the Family Court Act, 1984, but due to number availability of women judicial Officers in the cadre of District Judges, the High Court is unable to post Lady District Judges to the Family Courts.
The aspects brought to the numberice of the High Court were as follows As Rule 22 of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules old or new prescribes a specific procedure either for filling of S.C. and S.T. vacancies with O.C. candidates or for de reserving such vacancies, it is for the companysideration whether the 7th and 8th vacancies in the recruitment reserved for SCs and STs respectively can straightaway be de reserved which is number in companysonance with the said Rule 22.
Similarly the vacancy of Backward Class group A, B, C and or D companyld number be companyverted into other category.
The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has finally requested that 10 posts of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II, be sanctioned in addition to the existing cadre strength, exclusively to recruit the women candidates by direct recruitment, for being posted to the Family Courts and Mahila Courts in the State.
The relevant portion of the said Memorandum reads as follows The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has informed in his letter 6th read above that six Family Courts in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge were sanctioned at Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Kurnool, Tirupathi and Warangal in the G. O. 3rd read above and another Family Court at Secunderabad was sanctioned in the G. O. 5th read above.
By reserving all the 10 posts for women the High Court had inadvertently created a 100 reservation for women.
However in the cadre of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II there were number enough women Judges who companyld be posted in these Courts.
The High Court then called 35 candidates for oral interviews.
This panel companysisted of seven candidates from the open category, one from Scheduled Caste and one from Backward Class Group D. The High Court then sent the names of the nine candidates to the State Government for appointment.
The 10 candidates were asked to furnish further information relating to their legal practice.
Such a selection was entirely against the rules and against the reservation policy.
The State Government brought to the numberice of the High Court certain aspects and requested the High Court to companysider the same and express its views.
As the numberification inviting the applications for the post in question was issued much later to 18 3 1996, the principles of carry forward of vacancies in respect of BCs also applies to the recruitment.
Rules do number provide to keep provisionally selected District Judges out of service as Family Court and Mahila Court Judges and recruiting them into the posts of District Judges as and when vacancies for women for direct recruitment become available in order to their merit and subject to the rule of reservation.
172 sanctioning 10 additional posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II.
Further the posts advertised were 5 open companypetition, 2 Scheduled Caste, 1 Scheduled Tribe, 1 Backward Class Group A and 1 Backward Class group B. Yet the panel sent to the Government companysisted of 7 open companypetition candidates, 1 Scheduled Caste candidate and 1 Backward Class group D candidate.
Therefore the High Court requested the State to create additional posts.
On 3rd September, 1996 the State Government issued Office Memorandum No.
Thereafter on 20th July, 2000 another advertisement was issued calling for applications for appointment to six posts of District Judges.
The rules also required that if numberSC or ST candidate was available then the vacancy had to be carried forward.
The rules did number allow 100 reservation for women.
The appointments to the posts of District Judges shall be made by the Governor of the State, where as under the Family Courts Act, 1984, the State Government appoints persons to be judges of the Family Courts.
Pursuant to this Memorandum the High Court issued an Advertisement inviting applications from women candidates for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh desired that these Courts be manned by women.
N. VARIAVA, J. The facts relevant for the purposes of this Writ Petition are as follows The State of Andhra Pradesh established Family Courts and Mahila Courts.
The oral interviews were companyducted on 20th and 21st of March, 1997.
Because of these difficulties the persons empanelled companyld number be appointed in the cadre of District Sessions Judge Grade II.
first and fourth read above.
Government after careful companysideration of the matter hereby sanction in relaxation of Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the A. P. State Higher Judicial Service, 10 posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II, in addition to the existing cadre strength, exclusively for women candidates to be recruited by direct recruitment.
After receipt of the information the High Court rejected one name.
