the High Court has numberfurther remarks to offer.
This led the Bar Association City Civil 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 companyments against some of the persons recommended by the High Court for appointment.
The remaining 355 candidates were called by the High Court for interview.
Court did number agree the final authority was the Government in the matter of appointment and for good reasons it companyld reject the High Courts recommendations.
It is number clear from this letter whether it was written under the direction of the Chief Justice alone or under the directions of Chief Justice and the other Judges of the High Court as in the case of the letter dated 13 7 1973.
Even if the High 1 1967 1 S.C.R. 77.
In either event it companyld ask the High Court to make more recommendations in place of those who have been rejected.
After tracing the history of the recommendation made by the High Court in its letter dated l 3 7 1973 and in the light of the further information about these candidates as required from High Court, Government decided to select the six candidates mentioned therein including respondents 3 to 6 as if they were from the list recommended by the High Court .
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.
Then companyes the letter dated 30 11 1973.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 10th June, 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
Shri A. Panduranga Rao, the sole appellant in this appeal was one of the candidates interviewed on 14 6 1973.
But surely it was very much wrong on the part of the High Court to forward the entire list of the candidates interviewed with the marks obtained by them and adding at the same time that the High Court had numberfurther remarks to offer.
The High Court sent a detailed reply and companyments in its D.o.
The latter in reply to the formers letter dated 26 7 1973 sent the following reply on 1 8 1973 Your letter reached me on 28 7 1973.
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.
They were serials 1 and 4.
All the applications of the candidates sent by you are returned separately.
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.
A D.o.
It was number so.
We number companye to the relevant letters in question.
It is number necessary for us to advert to the companyments or resolutions of the Bar Associations or the views of the High, Court expressed in its letter dated 26 7 1974.
Twenty six applications were found to be number in order and rejected.
This letter was written by the Registrar of the High Court as directed by the Honble the Chief Justice, and the Honble Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
895 Of 1974 A. Chowdhary and K. Rajendra Chaudhury, for the appellant.
Four out of the six were number 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.
The appellants claim on merits for appointment to the post has number found favour with the High Court.
And yet the High Court or the Chief Justice did number object to the appointment of respondents 3 to 6 as District Judges.
They were number eligible to be so appointed as their names had never been recommended.
On 3 1 1972 the Government of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
letter dated 26 7 1973 pointing out that the leakage of the secret information companyld number be possible at the High Court end.
We companyld number understand the reason for writing such a letter by the High Court.
The total number of applications received in response to the advertisement was 381.
Thereupon the Government wrote D.o.
But surely it was wrong and incompetent for the Government to write a letter like the one dated 26 7 1973 inviting the High Courts attention to Instruction 12 5 of the Secretariat instructions and on the basis of that to ask it to send the list of persons whom the High Court companysidered to have reasonable claims to the 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 companyments.
The said judges from the first source are appointed in companysultation with the High Court and those from the second source are appointed on the recommendation of the High Court.
92 did number turn up and the remaining 263 were interviewed by the Selection Committee of the High Court on various dates.
On the basis of the furore created by two Bar Associations of Hyderabad and the High Courts letter dated 26 7 1973 written in reply to the Governments letter dated 24 7 1973 numberpersons candidature recommended by the High Court had been rejected when the letter dated 26 7 1973 was written by the Government.
2059 of 1974.
Narasimhulu, for respondents Nos.
Even after rejection the Government companyld number ask the High Court to send the list of all persons whom the High Court companysidered to have reasonable claim to the appointment We feel distressed to find that instead of pointing out the companyrect position of law to the Government and itself acting according to it, a letter hike the one dated 1 8 1973 was sent by the High Court in reply to the Governments letter dated 26 7 1973.
We shall state the facts in a narrow companypass shorn of unnecessary details.
2, to take necessary steps for filling up six vacancies by numberifying six posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II for direct recruitment.
With the approval of the High Court, an advertisement was published on 1 8 1972 in the Deccan Chronicle.
Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for respondent No.
By a D.O. letter dated 14 9 1972 the first respondent informed the second respondent that the six vacancies were being numberified for direct recruitment.
1 was requested by the High Court, respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. 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.
V. K. Rao, the intervener, appeared in person.
They were actually numberified in the Gazette of that date.
V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for respondent No.
3, 5 and 6.
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 marks obtained by them.
N. Rao, for respondent No.
This Article alongwith other Articles in Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution came up for companysideration 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 companymitted a serious error in the application of the principles of law settled by this Court to the facts of the instant case.
Out of the persons so selected two were those who had been recommended by the High Court alongwith four others in its letter dated 13 7 1973.
letter dated 26 7 1973 was written by the Government to the High Court with reference to the latters letter of recommendation dated 13 7 1973.
The appellants name was the fifth amongst the six names recommended.
