Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 691 (MAD)

S. Ramasubramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu

2021-03-01

M.M.SUNDRESH, S.ANANTHI

body2021
JUDGMENT : M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging two selection of appointments of Law Officers. The petitioner has applied for the subsequent filling-up of the post through his application dated 13.08.2018. He was not considered for any of the posts that he applied. Now, apart from challenging the selection process, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: - to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint law officers to Madras High Court after duly notifying the selection criteria at the time of calling for applications itself for assessing the suitability and professional competency, legal acumen etc., of the applicants; the weight age of marks for each selection criterion; - to publish the results of selection disclosing the marks awarded by the selection committee to each participant under each criterion; - to publish the select list to make appointments as law officers to the extent of vacancies notified for each category of law officers for High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai so as to be in consonance with the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2016) 6 SCC 1 and the dictum of the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court dated 28.04.2018 passed in W.P.No. 12951/2017 in letter and spirit; and - to direct the first respondent to remove Mr.Vijay Narayan from the post of learned Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the Chairman and the Selection Committee Members, the respondents 3 to 8 herein, by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 11.11.2020 and 12.11.2020. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the application has been made for the subsequent selection, inasmuch as when the earlier selection was not in accordance with law and in the event of the same being set aside, he would be in a position to be considered. There is a overwhelming public interest involved. The persons, who have no sufficient practice, have been considered and appointed. Therefore, the writ petition will have to be entertained. There is a overwhelming public interest involved. The persons, who have no sufficient practice, have been considered and appointed. Therefore, the writ petition will have to be entertained. On the objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prayer as sought for as against the Office of the Advocate General is also maintainable, as serious allegations have been made in the form of complaints, which if found to be true, the consequences will have to follow. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General raised an issue of maintainability with respect to the locus of the petitioner and the prayer as sought for. It is submitted by him that the petitioner cannot mix a public interest litigation with a private interest litigation. For the reasons known, the petitioner did not challenge the earlier selection, while not participating in it. A writ petition is also pending consideration before this Court with respect to the earlier selection made. 4. With respect to the subsequent selection, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the instructions furnished through the notification in No.1/2018, dated 25.07.2018, with specific reference to Sub-Clause (c) to Clause (4) states that for the non-compliance of filing of the Income Tax returns for the last three years along with the Commutation of Income Statement indicating specifically the annual gross income from the legal profession would lead to rejection of application summarily. The petitioner admittedly did not comply with the said condition, even as per the documents filed by him, by not indicating the gross total professional income for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. Only for the Assessment Year 2017-18, he has shown a sum of Rs.2,92,600/-. Therefore, on both counts, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. A pointed objection has been raised by the learned Additional Advocate General that the appointment of the learned Advocate General is made in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 165 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the same being a Constitutional Post, for the alleged irregularity, such a prayer cannot be sought for by a person, who was not considered and/or having found disqualified for the selection process. 6. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. 7. Thus, the same being a Constitutional Post, for the alleged irregularity, such a prayer cannot be sought for by a person, who was not considered and/or having found disqualified for the selection process. 6. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. 7. Having considered the submissions made, we find that the objections raised by the learned Additional Advocate General required to be sustained. The petitioner cannot combine two reliefs with respect to appointments made before his application and thereafter. There is already a writ petition pending for the earlier appointments made. The petitioner did not chose to challenge the same, till the filing of the present writ petition. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that if the earlier selection is set aside, the petitioner would be in a position to be considered for the subsequent post, would make the Us as a private interested litigation. Unfortunately, even on that ground, the petitioner will have no locus. If it is a private interested litigation, the entitlement to be considered for the post will have to be made. Unfortunately, even as per the documents filed by the petitioner, he is disqualified from being considered. 8. Apart from the same, the prayer sought for against the Office of the learned Advocate General also deserves to be rejected. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, the post of the learned Advocate General derives from the Constitution and he holds the post on the will and pleasure of His Excellency The Hon'ble Governor of Tamil Nadu. We are not dealing with a Writ of Quo Warranto. Even in which case also, the scope is extremely limited with respect to disqualification per se. There is obviously a difference between a Writ of Certiorari and a Writ of Quo Warranto. We are dealing with neither of this situation. This prayer has been sought for on a mere apprehension that the Office of the learned Advocate General is also involved in the malpractice. 9. There is obviously a difference between a Writ of Certiorari and a Writ of Quo Warranto. We are dealing with neither of this situation. This prayer has been sought for on a mere apprehension that the Office of the learned Advocate General is also involved in the malpractice. 9. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner disputed the fact, as placed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the complaint of the petitioner is pending before the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and despite notice, the petitioner is not co-operating, we do not wish to state anything on that, except to say that it is well open to the petitioner to pursue the said remedy, if he chooses to do so. Suffice it to say that on mere surmise and apprehension, a writ petition cannot be entertained by a person, who is otherwise disqualified, alleging illegality in the selection process. 10. Thus, looking from any perspective, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.