<p>The Andhra Pradesh High Court registry and the state government were asked on Friday by the Supreme Court to reply to a plea for quashing a notification for appointment of 18 district and sessions judges.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A Bench of justices D K Jain and A R Dave also issued notice to the state public service commission, seeking their replies within four weeks to the plea for quashing the December 22, 2011 notification on grounds of alleged irregularities in appointment of judges in the state.<br /><br />The order came on a petition by an advocate Bavi Papi Reddy Barrenka, also a candidate to the judges’ post under the physically–challenged category.<br /><br />Barrenka in his petition had accused the high court of amending the appointment rules midway the selection process of judges and appointing them in violation of various rules.<br />The petitioner claimed that the high court amended the rules by dispensing with the need for viva voce, though it had no power to do so.<br /><br />He said in the results for the written examination, announced by the high court on August 8, 2011, he had been declared to have been qualified along with 52 others.<br /></p>
<p>The Andhra Pradesh High Court registry and the state government were asked on Friday by the Supreme Court to reply to a plea for quashing a notification for appointment of 18 district and sessions judges.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A Bench of justices D K Jain and A R Dave also issued notice to the state public service commission, seeking their replies within four weeks to the plea for quashing the December 22, 2011 notification on grounds of alleged irregularities in appointment of judges in the state.<br /><br />The order came on a petition by an advocate Bavi Papi Reddy Barrenka, also a candidate to the judges’ post under the physically–challenged category.<br /><br />Barrenka in his petition had accused the high court of amending the appointment rules midway the selection process of judges and appointing them in violation of various rules.<br />The petitioner claimed that the high court amended the rules by dispensing with the need for viva voce, though it had no power to do so.<br /><br />He said in the results for the written examination, announced by the high court on August 8, 2011, he had been declared to have been qualified along with 52 others.<br /></p>