Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1831 (MAD)

N. R. Anbumani v. The Union of India

2005-12-02

R.BALASUBRAMANIAN

body2005
Judgment :- (Prayer: Writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner along with others for the post of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunals with reference to the qualification as prescribed in the Act and Rules as per the respondent's notification made in F.No.8/2/04-DRT on merits.) With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.T.Gopalan learned Additional Solicitor General representing Mr.K.Ravindranath learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner along with others for the post of Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The notification calling for appointment is available at Page No.1 of the paper book furnished by the petitioner. The qualification as stated in the notification is as hereunder: "A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal, unless he is or he has been or is qualified to be, a District Judge." The writ petitioner is admittedly a practising lawyer having 17 years of experience. Therefore it cannot be said that he does not satisfy the qualification prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the writ petitioner has the necessary qualification to apply, the petitioner has applied; he ought to have been called for an interview and in that interview, if he is found unsuitable, then only he can be rejected on any ground available in law. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent had not even called the petitioner for an interview; decided to process the applications of persons belonging to subordinate judiciary only and therefore this would amount to arbitrary exercise of power. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent would submit as the first point that though the stage at which the petitioner vis-Ã -vis the respondent is placed is in the pre-recruitment stage, yet the issue involved in the pre-recruitment stage is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and therefore the writ petition must be dismissed even at this stage on this short ground. Learned Additional Solicitor General relies upon a judgment of this court in the case reported in 1994 WLR Pg.690 (Government of Tamil Nadu, etc. & two others Vs. P.Hepzi Vimala Bai) to sustain the above point namely, even at the pre-recruitment stage, the Central Administrative Tribunal will have jurisdiction. Alternatively, the learned Additional Solicitor General would contend that a committee headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court had been constituted to process and select candidates and the committee so constituted, presided over by Justice S.N.Variava, as His Lordship then was, had minuted, while approving the modified criteria to ebb adopted among other things, that practising lawyers/Government Advocates/Public Prosecutors with not less than 20 years of practice would come within the zone of consideration. Therefore, the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General is that, since admittedly the writ petitioner has only 17 years of experience as a lawyer, he does not come within the zone of consideration. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that short-listing is permissible only after the candidates are called for an interview and not before. 3. I perused the entire materials available on record. I also went through the notification issued calling for applications. From a perusal of the notification itself, I do not find that the petitioner has any legal right vested in him to compel the respondent to call him for an interview. In other words, the application only prescribes qualification-enabling persons having that qualification to apply for the post. As to how the application so submitted could be processed, is not within the realm of the writ petitioner and he has no right to compel the respondent to process the applications so received in a particular manner. It is needless to state that in processing the applications so received, fairness, reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness must writ large on the proceedings themselves. From the counter affidavit filed, it is seen that the committee headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court has minuted that only those lawyers who have 20 years of experience alone would come within the zone of consideration. Even in respect of candidates from other sources such a criteria is shown to have been adopted. In my opinion, this cannot be said to be either arbitrary or discriminatory. Even in respect of candidates from other sources such a criteria is shown to have been adopted. In my opinion, this cannot be said to be either arbitrary or discriminatory. Under these circumstances, excluding the petitioner from being called for an interview in view of the fact that he has only 17 years of experience cannot be held to be the result of an arbitrary exercise of power. In my considered opinion, the procedure adopted by the committee headed by the Judge of the Supreme Court of India is fair, reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved in appointing suitable persons to be Presiding Officers of Debts Recovery Tribunals. Since on this point I am holding against the writ petitioner, I am not going into the first point raised namely, as to whether the writ petition is maintainable or not? Under these circumstances and in view of my conclusion on point No.2 as referred to above, I find no merit in the writ petition and it stands dismissed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.P.No.4075/2005 & W.V.M.P.No.1719/2005 are closed.