Mulumudi Krishna Reddy Vs the High Court of Ap

Mulumudi Krishna Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, Aged 63 completed (As on 01.01.2024) Worked as2ndSpl Judicial Magistrate of II class Ongole. R/o. Srikrishna Towers Flat No.203 Near Ramachandra Mission Mungamunu Road Ongole-523003, Prakasam District.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

The High Court of AP, at Amaravathi Rep by its Registrar General. 2. The Principal District and sessions Judge, Prakasam,Ongole. 3. The State of A P, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, (GAD) Nelapadu Guntur District.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Roc 593/S0/2024, dated 27.12.2024 of the 1st Respondent where by rejecting the case of petitioner

¶16

for consideration for the post of 11 Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class Ongole in view of Rule 5 of A.P., Special Judicial^{ServiceRules2024as} unreasonable and unsustainable as the rules issued vide Gazette No. 578, dated 17.09.2024 especially Rule 5 and Rule 7 rules contrary to each other especially for the post of II Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Ongole held by the petitioner since these rules are impossible to be applied to the above post for the present and consider the case of the petitioner for the post of II Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Ongole. Without reference to the age criteria till the completion of 65 Years by reading down the rules.^

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025^

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for the post of II Special Judicial Magistrate of 11 Class Ongole by suspending the Order in Roc No.593/S0/2024 dated 27-12-2024 of the 1st Respondent.^

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TVS KUMAR ^

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: SRI Y N VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: GP FOR SERVICES I^{^}

¶21

The Court made the following order:

¶22

1

¶23

HCJ & RRR, J W.P.No.6418of 2025

¶24

APHC010091412025

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3446]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 6418/2025

¶33

Between:

¶34

1.MULUMUDI KRISHNA REDDY, S/O.KOTI REDDY AGED 63 COMPLETED (AS ON 01.01.2024) WORKED AS2NDSPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF II CLASS ONGOLE. R/0. SRIKRISHNA TOWERS FLAT NO.203 NEAR RAMACHANDRA MISSION MUNGAMUNU ROAD ONGOLE‘-523003, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

1.THE HIGH COURT OF AP, AT AMARAVATHI REP BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL.

¶38

2.THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PRAKASAM,ONGOLE.

¶39

3.THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (GAD) NELAPADU GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶41

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Roc 593/S0/2024, dated 27.12.2024 of the 1st Respondent where by rejecting the

¶42

2

¶43

HCJ & RRR, J W.P.No.6418of 2025

¶44

case of petitioner for consideration for the post of II Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class Ongole in view of Rule 5 of^{A.P.,SpecialJudicial} Service Rules 2024 as unreasonable and unsustainable^{astherulesissued} vide Gazette No. 578, dated 17.09.2024 especially Rule^{5andRule7rules} contrary to each other especially for the post of II^{SpecialJudicialMagistrate} of II Class, Ongole held by the petitioner since these^{rulesareimpossibleto} be applied to the above post for the present and consider^thecaseofthe petitioner for the post of II Special Judicial Magistrate^of II Class, Ongole. Without reference to the age criteria till the completion^{of65Yearsbyreading} down the rules and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to consider the application^ofthe petitioner for the post of II Special Judicial Magistrate of 11 Class Ongole by suspending the Order in Roc No.593/S0/2024 dated 27-12-2024^ofthe1st Respondent and pass

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶46

1.T VS KUMAR

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

2.Y N VIVEKANANDA

3

HCJ & RRR, J W.P.No.6418 of 2025

¶52

The Court made the following ORDER-

¶53

(per Hon ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶54

Heard Sri T.V.S. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶55

The petitioner herein had worked in the Judicial Department and retired on 31.12.2020 as a senior superintendent. Thereafter, he applied for the post of Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class in Prakasam District, in pursuance of the notification issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, on 06.08.2021. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Second Class Special Judicial Magistrate, Ongole by way of G.O.Rt.No.30/Law/HOB/Courts, dated 05.01.2023 and took up the assignment on 23.01.2023.

¶56

While, the petitioner was functioning as the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, the 1®* respondent had notified the Rules called A.P. Special Judicial Magistrates of Second Class Service Rules, 2024, by way of Roc.No.515/SO/2021, dated 09.09.2024. 4. The tenure of the petitioner was to end on 22.01.2025. Even before that date, a notification, for fresh appointments, was issued on 05.11.2024. The petitioner made a representation, dated 13.11.2024, about the anomalies in the said notification, dated 05.11.2024, due to which, the petitioner had become ineligible to apply for the said post.

¶57

4

¶58

HCJ & RRR, J W.P.No.6418of 2025’

¶59

One of the criteria is that only persons with at least 1 years left for completing 65 years, are eligible to apply, inasmuch as the age of retirement for Special Judicial of Second Class is 65 years. The petitioner’s contention is that the Rules, mentioned above, require that the Principal District Judge should issue the notification for filling up the posts of Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, six months prior to the completion of tenure of appointment of a sitting Magistrate. The petitioner contends that in such circumstances, the notification, for the post of Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Ongole, should have been issued in the month of June / July, 2024. The notification was issued only on 05.11.2024^{duetowhichthe} petitioner had become ineligible to apply for the said post as he fall short of four months of the required 1 years prior to attaining 65 years.

¶60

The petitioner contends that the delay in issuance^{ofnotification} cannot be held against him and he should also be considered for the post of Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, inasmuch as the delay caused by the respondents should not hurt his chance. The petitioner^{wouldalsocontend} that in the earlier system persons having only one year left for completion of 65 years were also considered and as such the present^{Rulesshouldberead} down to include the persons, who have only one year before they attain the age of 65 years.

¶61

A perusal of Rule 7, which requires a notification six months prior to ths-Gompletion of tenure, would show that this Rule is at best a directory

¶62

5

¶63

HCJ & RRR, J W.P.No.6418 of 2025

¶64

Rule and not a mandatory Rule, inasmuch as, there are^{noconsequencesfor} violation of such a Rule.

¶65

In the circumstances, when it is the admitted case of the that he did not have the required 1 72 years, by the^time of petitioner notification dated 05.11.2024, there can be no relaxation,^{merelybecause} there is a delay in publication of notification. In^{thecircumstances,no} case IS made out by the petitioner for interference by this^Court.

¶66