W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.03.2021
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2902 to 2907 of 2021
S.Ramasubramanian : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Public (Law Officers) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Selection Committee for Appointment of Government Law Officers, Rep. by its Chairman, the Advocate General, O/o. Advocate General, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.Mr.Vijay Narayan, Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court, Chennai.
1/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
4.Mr.Senthil Kumar, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Government, Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
5.Mr.Niranjan Mardi, I.A.S., (Retd) Formerly Principal Secretary to Home Department, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai.
6.Mr.S.K.Prabakar, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
7.Mr.Poovalingam, M.A., B.L., Formerly Secretary to Law Department, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai.
8.Mr.Gopi Ravikumar, Secretary to Law Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
9.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104.
10.The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai – 625 023.
11.The Director General of Police (Law & Order), 4, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
12.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), No.293, MKV Road, Collector's Nager, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.
13.The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Rep. by its Secretary, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
14.Mr.Thangavadhana Balakrishnan, Additional Government Pleader
15.Ms.R.Janaki, Additional Government Pleader
16.Mr.K.T.Devendran, Additional Government Pleader
17.Ms.R.Krishnapriya, Additional Government Pleader
18.Mr.A.Devnarendran, Additional Government Pleader
19.Mr.J.Purushothaman, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
20.Mr.M.Thamilarasan, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
21.Mr.E.Neelakandan, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
22.Mr.S.Ramya Revathy, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
3/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
23.Mr.G.Dhanamadhri, Government Advocate (Taxes)
24.Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
25.Mr.B.Arulmozhi Maran, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
26.Mr.G.Hari Hara Arun Soma Sankar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
27.Mr.P.Kannidevan, Additional Government Pleader
28.Mr.C.Ramar, Additional Government Pleader
29.M.Muthu, Additional Government Pleader
30.Ms.Anantha Devi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
31.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
32.Mr.E.Balamurugan, Special Government Pleader
33.Mrs.J.Padmaavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader
34.Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
4/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
35.Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Additional Public Prosecutor
36.Mr.M.Elumalai, Additional Government Pleader
37.Mr.Y.T.Aravind Gosh, Additional Government Pleader
38.Mr.C.Ramesh, Special Government Pleader
39.Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Special Government Pleader
40.Mr.M.Muthugeethayan, Special Government Pleader
41.Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, Special Government Pleader
42.Mr.M.Rajarajan, Additional Government Pleader
43.Mr.K.Sathya Singh, Additional Government Pleader
44.Mr.M.Muniasamy, Additional Government Pleader
45.Mr.P.Mahendran, Additional Government Pleader
46.Mr.R.Murugaraj, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
5/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
47.Ms.J.Lakshmi Prasanna, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
48.Mr.M.Thilagar, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
49.Mr.A.Karthik, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
50.Mr.G.Arjunan, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
51.Mrs.M.Rajeswari, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
52.Mr.R.Saravana Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
53.Mr.R.Erottuchamy, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
54.Mr.R.Srinivasan, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
55.Mr.M.Ganesan, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
56.Mrs.S.E.Veronica Vincent, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
57.Mr.M.V.Chandrasekaran, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
58.Mr.K.R.Bhrarthi Kannan, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
6/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
59.Mr.K.Karmegam, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
60.Mr.R.Venkatesh, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
61.Mr.Akil Akbar Ali Government Advocate (Civil Side)
62.Mr.J.H.Iniyan, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
63.Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
64.Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
65.Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
66.Ms.M.Lalitha, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
67.Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate (Civil Side)
68.Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Advocate General
69.Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan, Additional Advocate General – XI
70.Mr.Kumaresh Babu, Additional Advocate General – XII
7/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
71.Mr.Bhagawathi, Government Advocate (Civil Side) : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.6, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 04.01.2018; G.O.Ms.No.155, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 27.02.2018; G.O.Ms.No.815, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 15.10.2018; G.O.Ms.No.411, 412, 413, 414, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 12.08.2020; and G.O.Ms.No.483, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 30.09.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently 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 weightage of marks for each selection criterion and to publish the results of selection disclosing the marks awarded by the selection committee to each participant under each criterion; and thereafter to public 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 consequently to direct the first respondent to remove Mr.Vijay Narayan from the post of Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and
8/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
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.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Subramaniyan for Mr.SS.Madhavan
For Respondents : Mr.Jayanth Muthu Raj, Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.V.Jeyaprakash Narayanan, State Government Pleader for RR.1, 2, 11 & 12
Mr.D.Sivaraman, Standing Counsel for RR.9 & 10 *****
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
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:
9/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
- 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 weightage 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.
10/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
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.
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.
11/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
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.
12/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
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
lis 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
13/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
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. 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
14/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No [M.M.S.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.] Internet : Yes 01.03.2021 gk
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law Officers) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chairman, Selection Committee for Appointment of Government Law Officers, O/o. Advocate General, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104.
4.The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai – 625 023.
5.The Director General of Police (Law & Order), 4, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
15/16
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
gk
6.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), No.293, MKV Road, Collector's Nager, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.
W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2021
01.03.2021
16/16
http://www.judis.nic.in