HYDERABAD: “Are judges not to be considered to be belonging to Telangana despite their birth and growth in Hyderabad and assimilation into the city’s milieu for decades unless their DNA indicates their ancestry to Telangana?” a division bench of the High Court wondered aloud on Friday.
The bench said this while dismissing the PIL seeking appointment of regular chief justice and judges to the High Court for Andhra and Telangana.
“The petitioner’s opinion stands in contrast to the Presidential Orders, issued in exercise of the power conferred by Article 371 (d) of the Constitution. We are of the considered view that the grievances of the petitioner are not capable of being remedied by the wave of a magic wand.”
Differing with the petitioner’s argument that as on date there were only two judges elevated from the Bar and two from the service belonging to TS, and all other judges of the present High Court (barring those from outside the state) belong to AP state, it said there were several judges who were raised in Hyderabad. “It appears that the petitioner does not consider them from TS because their forefathers hailed from areas which now form part of the bifurcated state of AP.”
The bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice J Uma Devi was dismissing the PIL filed by Sarasani Satyam Reddy, senior advocate, complaining about the inaction on the part of the different stakeholders, including the Supreme Court, in not appointing a regular CJ for the past 22 months, not filling the vacancies of judge posts to the sanctioned strength, not maintaining the ratio of 2:1 for elevation from the Bar and the service and not appointing any member of the Bar of the state of Telangana for the past four years.
The bench said the Supreme Court had already indicated that a rigorous process for filling up of the judge post vacancies was in progress.
“The apex court, in its order dated March 20, 2017 in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India, stated that a rigorous process for filling up a large number of vacancies is in progress.
So, there is no reason to doubt whether the Supreme Court, on its administrative side, will or will not take up the issue of appointment of a regular chief justice also along with the issue of filling up of the vacancies,” the bench observed.
In fact, on April 3, the bench after hearing the petitioner, the centre and the HC, had reserved its order with regard to whether to entertain the PIL or not.