Judgment :- (Petitioner under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, order or direction in the nature of Writ Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in appointing the 5th respondent as Assistant Government Pleader, Junior Civil Court Pattikonda, Kurnool District in pursuance of GO Rt. No.1949 dated 30-12-2006 Legal Department as illegal, violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution, arbitrary and violative of instruction No.5 of the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Appointment and conditions of service) Instructions, 2000.) Petitioners are the Advocates practicing in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda, Kurnool District. They feel aggrieved by the orders issued by the 4th respondent in G.O.Rt.No.1949, dated 30.12.2002, appointing the 5th respondent herein as Assistant Government Pleader for that Court. The petitioners stated that after the post of Assistant Government Pleader feel vacant, steps were initiated in accordance with the instructions in G.O.Ms.No.187, Law (L) Department, dated 16.12.2000 (for short ‘the instructions’). According to them, the Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda, first respondent herein forwarded a panel of five Advocates, including their names, to the learned District Judge, Kunool, second respondent herein. It is stated that the name of the 5th respondent was not at all included in the panel, and despite the same, he came to be appointed. Sri Harischandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first respondent is the best person to assess the performance and desirability of Advocates for being appointed as Assistant Government Pleader and there was no basis or justification for respondents 2,3 and 4, in appointing a person, who was not recommended by the first respondent. Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, had obtained instructions. He stated that the matter of appointment of Assistant Government Pleader to the Subordinate Courts is governed by the instructions, and that according to Clause (5) thereof, it is the pane forwarded by the District Collector, third respondent herein, that becomes the basis for the 4th respondent to act upon. He contends that on the basis of his own verification, the second respondent had included the name of the 5th respondent also in the panel forwarded by him to the third respondent. He contends that on the basis of his own verification, the second respondent had included the name of the 5th respondent also in the panel forwarded by him to the third respondent. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 3 and 4, submits that the 5th respondent was appointed, after assessment of his performance, and no prejudice can be said to have been suffered by the petitioners. Sri Jayashankar Reddy, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, submits that the appointment of his client fully accords with the instructions and that he has since taken charge. The Government formulated a procedure through executive instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 16.12.2000. Clause (5) thereof deals with the procedure for appointment of Assistant Government Pleaders in the subordinate Courts. A panel of Advocates is to be forwarded by the District Collector to the Government. While forwarding the panel, the District Collector is placed under obligation to consult the District Judge. Therefore, what becomes material in the whole process is the panel forwarded by the District Collector. The consultation between the District Judge and the concerned subordinate Judge itself is not final, the question of attaching any finality to the recommendations of the Presiding Officer of the concerned subordinate Court does not arise. In the instant case, it has emerged that though the name of the 5th respondent was not recommended by the learned Junior Civil Judge, the learned District Judge has included the same in his recommendation to the third respondent i.e. District Collector. Therefore, it cannot be said that any procedural irregularity has taken place. This Court does not find any basis to grant any relief to the petitioners. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.