HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24558 of 2010 DATE: 24.12.2010 Between : E. Venugopal Rao. ...Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Legal Affairs Law (L) Department & another. ...Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24558 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings, dated 16.08.2010, issued by the District Collector, Warangal, in Rc.No.C1/5851/2007. 2. By the aforesaid proceedings, the 2nd respondent- District Collector, in view of expiry of the term of the Government Pleader in the District Court, Warangal, sent the panel of Advocates along with their bio-data, undertakings and antecedent reports in accordance with the A.P. Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, to the Government, for appointment of Government Pleader in the said Court. 3. One Sri Mohd. Mahmood, Advocate, was appointed as a Government Pleader in the District Court, Warangal for a period of three years, vide G.O.Rt.No.951, Law, dated 05.06.2007, and his term expired on 04.06.2010. As per the instructions issued in the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, issued in G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 06.12.2000, the District Collector has to prepare a panel of Advocates and send the same to the Government for appointment of Government Pleader. In view of the expiry of the term of the Government Pleader, who was appointed vide G.O.Rt.No.951, dated 05.06.2007, the District Collector, Warangal, has addressed the Government for making interim arrangements to continue the Government Pleader whose term is expired, as incharge Government Pleader in the District and Sessions Court and in Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Warangal, till the regular Government Pleader is appointed. Based on the said communication sent by the District Collector, the Government, while permitting to continue such incharge arrangements, requested the District Collector to furnish a fresh panel of five names by duly considering the names of Advocates belonging to OC/BC/SC/ST and women categories. Pursuant to such communication made by the Government, the District Collector has forwarded the panel of Advocates from the Principal District Court, Warangal, to the Secretary to the Government, Law, Legislative Affairs and Courts, for taking necessary action for appointment of Government Pleader in District Court, Warangal. 4. This writ petition is filed, questioning the impugned proceedings, mainly on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1285, dated 02.08.2010. It is contended by Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for petitioner that though the District Collector was requested to furnish a panel of five names of eligible Advocates for appointment as Government Pleader for District and Sessions Court and Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Warangal, by duly considering the names of Advocates belonging to OC/BC/SC/ST and women categories, inspite of the same, the panel was sent without including any candidate belonging to BC, SC and women categories. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a practicing Advocate in Warangal District, having enrolled in the year 1998 and is eligible to be appointed as a Government Pleader. It is stated that though he belongs to BC-D category, he is deprived of consideration by the impugned proceedings, which runs contrary to the orders of the Government, dated 02.08.2010. 6. Counter affidavit is filed by the Government. In the counter affidavit, while referring to the factual aspects and while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that as per the A.P. Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, rule of reservation need not be followed for appointment of Government Pleader. It is stated that by considering the candidates belonging to various categories, the Presiding Officer of the District Court has forwarded the panel of eligible Advocates to the District Collector, who in turn, has sent the panel to the Government, for appointment. 7. I have perused the orders of the Government, dated 02.08.2010. By the aforesaid orders, the 2nd respondent- District Collector was requested to furnish a panel of five names of eligible Advocates by duly considering the names of Advocates belonging to OC/BC/SC/ST and women categories. Merely because the Government has directed the District Collector to send the panel by considering the names of the Advocates belonging to various categories, does not mean that the District Collector has to include the names of Advocates belonging to all those categories. It has to be construed that while considering the names, if the candidates belonging to any of the categories are not meritorious and eligible, it is not necessary to include such category in the panel of names to be sent to the Government. More over, it is to be seen that such appointments are presently governed by the executive instructions, which are issued by the Law Department in G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 06.12.2000, which are termed as the A.P. Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000. Clause 7 of the said instructions merely states that in making selection, every endeavour shall be made to provide equitable representation to members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes, but there is no specific reservation to any of the categories. As rightly pleaded by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and also the learned Counsel Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, appearing for the impleaded respondent, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of V.Ramesh Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1], has categorically held that for the purpose of appointment of Law Officers, no rule of reservation is applicable. When such executive instructions were questioned, a Division Bench of this Court was not inclined to quash such instructions on the ground that they do not contain rule of reservation as introduced in the earlier Rules. In that view of the matter, and merely because the names of Advocates belonging to all the categories, as alleged by the petitioner, are not included in the panel of names sent by the District Collector, it cannot be said that the same is contrary to the orders of the Government issued on 02.08.2010. This writ petition is also to be rejected on one more ground, namely, that the appointment is not yet made, and only when the panel was sent by the 2nd respondent-District Collector to the Government, which is in the nature of inter-departmental proceeding, this writ petition is filed, and so far, no final decision is taken by the Government. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings, dated 16.08.2010, issued by the District Collector, Warangal in Rc.No.C1/5851/2007. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th December 2010 ajr [1] 1994(3) ALT 41 (D.B)