THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.1872 OF 2008 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah) Aggrieved by the proceedings bearing R.No.1259/03 dated 9.6.2003 passed by the 1st respondent – District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, in terminating the services of the petitioner- G.Varalakshmi Devi, w/o Vasudeva Reddy, who was working as Record Assistant in the District and Sessions Court, Nellore, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in the 1st respondent – District and Sessions Court, Nellore District pursuant to the notification dated 16.2.1995. Aggrieved by the selections made pursuant to the notification dated 16.2.1995, one V.Venkata Subrahmanya, filed writ petition in W.P.No.18786 of 1995 on the file of this Court, on the ground that the selected candidates are not the ‘local candidates’ and their appointments are illegal. In the said writ petition, the present writ petitioner was the 2nd respondent. By order dated 20.7.2001, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the 1st respondent – District and Sessions Judge, Nellore District to conduct an enquiry as regards the allegations made by the petitioner therein and to record a finding whether the unofficial respondents 2 to 5 fulfill the criteria of local candidature in terms of para 7 of the Presidential order, upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, to adduce evidence in that regard and that in the event it is found that the un-official respondents 2 to 5 are not local candidates, appropriate consequential orders may be issued. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench judgment of this court in W.P.No.18786/1995 dated 20.7.2001, one of the respondents by name J.Dev Singh, who was selected as Attender, pursuant to the notification dated 16.2.1995, carried the matter to the Apex Court in SLP.(Civil)No.17252/2001. Initially, the Apex Court granted interim stay and while adjourning the matter for four weeks, directed the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, to send report in a sealed cover. Accordingly after conducting the enquiry, the report was submitted and the Apex Court dismissed the SLP.No.17252/2001 dated 25.6.2001 by holding that from the report of the District Judge it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for being selected to the post reserved for a local candidate and that being the case, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner therein served for nine years, suggested that if any vacancy falls vacant, in future, the department may accommodate the petitioner, if the same is legally permissible. It was also made clear that the said order, will not confer any right. Pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court, the 1st respondent sought for a clarification and this Court expressed its inability to give any clarification on the administrative side, since the order was passed on the judicial side and pursuant thereto, impugned orders were passed, terminating the services of the petitioner herein along with other selected candidates. Aggrieved by the orders of termination, the petitioner herein filed appeal to the 2nd respondent – Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and by proceedings in ROC.No.1711/2003-C.I (1) dated 28.8.2004, the 2nd respondent directed the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Attender against the vacancy not reserved for local candidates, subject to other criteria. Subsequently, by proceedings in Dis.No.3119 dated 10.6.2005, the petitioner was informed that the 2nd respondent rejected the request of the petitioner to accord permission for age relaxation for appointment as Attender. Hence, aggrieved by the termination, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the enquiry conducted pursuant to the orders dated 20.7.2001 passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.18786/1995, was without following the due process of law and no copy of the inquiry report was furnished to her and the same is illegal. 4 . The 1st respondent – District and Sessions Judge, filed counter affidavit and while narrating the facts with regard to issuing of notification and the recruitment and filing of W.P.No.18786/1995 and the SL.P.(Civil).No.17252/2001 dated 20.10.2002 and the orders passed therein, stated that in the inquiry conducted, the present petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and she got marked Ex.D-1 certificate showing her husband was working in Nirmala and Company, Nellore, prior to the date of issuing notification and based on the said certificate, the petitioner claimed that she is a local candidate. But her contention was negatived and a finding was giving that she is not a local candidate, by taking into consideration paras 6 and 7 of the Presidential Order, issued in pursuance of the powers conferred by the clauses (1) and (2) of the Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the said enquiry was conducted after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and hence after disposal of SLP, she cannot contend that due procedure was not followed. Further on considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Hon’ble High Court issued proceedings in Roc.No.1711/2003-C1(1) dated 28.8.2004 to the District Judge, Nellore to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Attender against the vacancy not reserved for local candidate, subject to other criteria. In pursuance of the said order, a letter was addressed to the Hon’ble High court on 11.1.2005 in Dis.No.203 dated 11.1.2005 with a request to accord permission for age relaxation to the writ petitioner to consider her case for appointment as Attender. But the Hon’ble High Court issued proceedings in order Roc.No.1711/2003-C1(1) dated 1.6.2005 by rejecting the request of the District Judge. Further the Hon’ble High court issued another proceedings in order in Roc.No.1711/2003- C1(1) dated 23.4.2007 by rejecting the mercy application of the writ petition for appointment to the post of Record Assistant or any other post in the Judicial Department by relaxing the rule with regard to her age by exercising the inherent powers under Rule 36(B) of APJMS Rules, 2003. Therefore, with these averments, the 1st respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. From the above material it could be seen that though the petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent – District Judge, Nellore, as against the ‘local vacancy’, pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in the writ petition in W.P.No.18786/1995 dated 20.7.2001, to which the petitioner is a party, and also in pursuance of the interim orders passed by the Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil).No.17252/2001, the 1st respondent – District and Sessions Judge had conducted an enquiry with regard to the status of the petitioner and found that she is not a local candidate. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent – District Judge, it is categorically state that in the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and she got marked Ex.D-1 certificate showing that her husband was working in Nirmala and Company, Nellore prior to the date of issuing notification. After considering the evidence on record and in view of paras 6 and 7 of the Presidential Order, issued in pursuance of the powers conferred by the clauses (1) and (2) of the Article 371-D of the Constitution, the Enquiry Officer, recorded finding of fact that the petitioner is not a local candidate. The said enquiry report was submitted to the Apex Court in a sealed cover, pursuant to the interim orders of the Apex Court in SLP (Civil).No.17252/2001. Hence, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to put-forward her case and hence the contention of the petitioner that the principles of natural justice have been violated, cannot be countenanced. Further, the Apex Court, accepting the report of the District Judge, dismissed the SLP. Therefore, the finding that the petitioner is not a local candidate, has become final and there cannot not be any further agitation on this issue. 6 . After the termination of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 09.06.2003, she preferred an appeal and this Court issued proceedings in Roc.No.1711/2003-C1(1) dated 28.8.2004 and directed the District Judge, Nellore to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Attender against the vacancy, not reserved for the local candidate, subject to other criteria and accordingly the 1st respondent called for the relevant documents to consider her case for appointment to the post of Attender. But she was found over aged and therefore, permission was sought to for age relaxation. Here, it is to be noticed that this Court, on administration side, directed the District Judge to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Attender, subject to her fulfilling other required conditions. She is found not satisfying the age criteria. Therefore, by subsequent proceedings, dated 1.6.2005 the request of the District Judge to accord permission for age relaxation was rejected and even the mercy application filed by the petitioner for appoint to the post of Record Assistant or any other post in the judicial department by relaxing the age, was rejected in exercise of the inherent powers and Rule 36(B) of APJMS Rules, 2003. 7. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------------ V.V.S.RAO,J ------------------------------------------ G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:06.08.2008 AVS