Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Thiru A.D.C. Gurusamy, a practicing advocate before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, has filed this pro bono publico writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus: 1. directing the High Court Madras, second respondent herein, as well as the other respondents, in particular the fourth respondent, The President of India, to appoint respondents 6 to 14 as permanent Judges of the Madras High Court taking into consideration, the work load and arrears of pending number of cases; 2. directing the fourth respondent, viz., The President of India to give consent to the first respondent, viz., The Chief Justice of Madras High Court to appoint retired High Court Judges to the Madras High Court under Art.224-A of the Constitution of India taking into consideration the work load and arrears of pending number of cases; 3. directing the fourth respondent, The President of India to furnish to the second respondent, viz., The Registrar-General, High Court, Madras the total number of retired High Court Judges of all 21 High Courts in India and also furnish to the second respondent the total amount of monthly pension periodically paid to all the retired High Court Judges in India by the Government of India so as to enable the second respondent to seek consent of the retired High Court Judges to sit and act as High Court Judges for the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court; and 4. directing the first respondent to provide 16 High Court Judges for 12 Court-halls to Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court either seeking appointment as Permanent Judges under Art.217 of the Constitution of India or by seeking appointment as Additional Judges under Art.224 of the Constitution or appointment of retired High Court Judges under Art.224-A of the Constitution. In short, the prayer of the petitioner seems to be filling up of the entire sanctioned strength of the Judges of the Madras High Court by appointing respondents 6 to 14, who were appointed as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court, as permanent Judges and also by appointing retired High Court Judges as ad hoc Judges of the Madras High Court under Art.224-A of the Constitution, and appointment of 16 Judges for the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. 2. 2. Originally, this writ petition was filed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and was heard by a Division Bench comprising of Justice K P. Sivasubramaniam and Justice A. Kulasekaran and the Division Bench, on 23.6.2005, passed the following order­ Notice to be issued to the learned Advocate General and to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India to address arguments on the question of maintainability Subsequently, Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam finding that his name has found place in one of the representations dated 9.1.2005 sent by petitioner, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for being posted before some other Division Bench. The Hon'ble The Chief Justice by order dated 29.11.2005, directed the Registry to list the matter before this Bench on the question of maintainability. 3. Arguments were advanced in extenso by the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person in this pro bono publico. We feel it not necessary to record his submissions in minute details except the sum and substance the thereof. The same is as follows: The present writ petition is filed for filling up the entire sanctioned strength of Judges to the Madras High Court, both for, the Principal seat as well as for the Permanent Madurai Bench. He also sought for appointment of 16 Judges for the Madurai Bench either under Art.217 or Art.224 or Art.224-A of the Constitution of India. He had made representations in this regard to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court as well as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. He came to know that the tenure of respondents 6 to 14, who were initially appointed as Additional Judges of this Court, was further extended for a period of four months and exclaimed that when once respondents 6 to 14 have already passed the suitability test on the date of their initial appointment as Additional Judges, they ought to have been made permanent, if permanent vacancies are available and the extension of their term for a further period of four months was an insult to the judicial system of the Madras High Court and an assault on the independence of judiciary. He also sought for the appointment of 16 Judges for 12 Court-halls of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. He also sought for the appointment of 16 Judges for 12 Court-halls of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, being persona signata, has powers under Art.224-A of the Constitution of India to appoint retired High Court Judges as ad hoc Judges of the Madras High Court. So suitable directions are to be issued to the 4th respondent, the President of India and others. 4. We have heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate-General, who raised a preliminary objection regarding the very maintainability of this writ petition stating that in view of the bar under Art.361 of the Constitution of India providing legal immunity to the President of India, who is shown as the fourth respondent in this writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Gurusamy, party in person, orally submitted that the immunity provided to the President of India under Art. 361 of the Constitution of India would not apply in the facts and circumstance of this case. 6. He has also filed a memo stating that Art.361 of the Constitution is the general clause giving immunity to the President for his performance of the powers and duties of his office and that the Constitution contemplated separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary and that all the executive functions are done in the name of the President under Art.53. It is further stated in the memo that the distinction between the functions of the Union and the functions of the President of India are well brought out in Jayanthilal Amartial v. F.N. Rana, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 648, and that since the petitioner seeks the relief of appointment of Judges, it is purely the function of the President of India and not that of Union of India and, therefore, the bar under Art.361 is not attracted to this case. 7. The party-in-person, while explaining his submissions, cited various decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149; Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1994 S.C.268 and In re., Presidential Reference, A.I.R. 1999 S.C.1, and also the lectures delivered By Mr. H.M. Seervai and Mr. N.A. Palkhivala. 8. H.M. Seervai and Mr. N.A. Palkhivala. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to, the submissions made by the party-in-person and the objection raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Advocate-General regarding maintainability of the writ petition. 9. Art.361 of the Constitution of India reads as under: "Protection of President and Governors and Rajpramukhs: - (1) The President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties: … …….. ………” A reading of the provisions of Art.361 makes it clear that the President of India is not answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. 10. First of all, there is no dispute that the President of India, fourth respondent herein, is the appointing authority. As the petitioner prays for the relief of issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the President of India to appoint respondents 6 to 14 as permanent Judges of the Madras High Court and also to give his consent to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for appointing the retired High Court Judges as ad hoc Judges of the Madras High Court under Art.224-A of the Constitution, Art.361 of the Constitution is a clear bar. 11. Secondly, as held by the Supreme Court in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 S.C.C. 363 : and In re., Presidential Reference, A.I.R, 1999, S.C 1, the scope of judicial review in the matter of appointment of High Court Judges is very narrow and limited only on two grounds, viz., 1. want of consultation with the named Constitutional functionaries; and 2. lack of any condition of eligibility in the case of appointment. All other grounds are excluded. It is not the case of the petitioner that any one of these two circumstances has arisen in this case. 12. want of consultation with the named Constitutional functionaries; and 2. lack of any condition of eligibility in the case of appointment. All other grounds are excluded. It is not the case of the petitioner that any one of these two circumstances has arisen in this case. 12. Thirdly, as per the decisions of the Apex Court in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1994 S.C.268 and In re., Presidential Reference, A.I.R. 1999 S.C 1, it is for the appropriate Constitutional functionaries to decide as to whether the person, whose name has been recommended, is suitable or not for being appointed as Judge of the High Court; as to whether the additional Judges are fit to be appointed as permanent Judges or as to whether there are compelling circumstances to appoint ad hoc Judges and no person outside the group of Constitutional functionaries referred to in the relevant Articles of the Constitution and in the judgments of the Supreme Court, cited supra, can claim any right to impose his or her opinion on the suitability on those, who are charged with the responsibility of considering the suitability of the candidate. 13. Fourthly, it is to be noted as pointed out by the learned Advocate-General, that in view of the subsequent development of appointing respondents 6 and 8 to 13 as permanent Judges of this Court, prayer of the petitioner under relief (a) has become in fructuous. 14. In the light of the above discussions, are of the view that the writ petition is liable to be rejected, as the same is not maintainable Accordingly the writ petition is rejected. Petition dismissed.