High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVARAJ PATIL
P. Ramasamy - Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented By Its Secretary, Chennai - Respondents
W.P. No. 14431 of 1998 and W.M.P. No. 21905 of 1998
Decided On : 17 September 1998
Shivaraj Patil, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Memorandum No. 6746/APD-CJA/98 dated 11.9.1998 on the file of the respondent, quash the same and further direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's application as valid application as per notification dated 2.7.1998 and pass such further order as it may deem fit.
3. The impugned memorandum reads :-
"Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Memorandum No. 6746/APD-CJA/98 dated 11.9.1998.
Sub : Recruitment (Direct) for the Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service - Application rejected Regarding
Ref : Application from Thiru P. Ramasamy.
Thiru P. Ramasamy (Appln. No. 211188) is informed that his application for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service has been rejected for the following reason.
According to para 5 of the Commission's Notification dated 2.7.1998, the candidate must be practicing as an advocate or pleader or working as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I or Grade II and must have so practiced/worked for a period of not less than 4 years, as on the said date, whereas the candidate is working as Junior Clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pondicherry.
Requests for reconsideration of this memo will receive no attention.
A. V. Seshadri
Deputy Secretary
Sd/(11.9.1998)
Section Officer"
4. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not a practising advocate as on 2.7.1998 and was working as Junior Clerk on that date. According to the notification dated 2.7.1998 issued by the respondent, advocate practising as on the date of the said notification, having four years of practice was eligible to apply. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a practising advocate as on 2.7.1998.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the general instructions, issued by the respondent submitted that a person in the service of Indian Union or of a state in India or in the employment of local bodies or Universities need apply through the competent authorities with their 'no objection certificates'. According to him, this instruction is an indication that the petitioner, even though was working as a clerk as on 2.7.1998, could apply through proper channel and he had practised for about seven years before joining service. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner satisfies the requirement that he should have four years bar experience, though he has ceased to practice as an advocate as on 2.7.1998 in view of the fact that he has joined service in the judicial department.
6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The notification issued by the respondent clearly states that a candidate on the date of notification, i.e., on 2.7.1998 must be (a) practising as an Advocate or pleader and must have so practised for a period of not less than four years as on the said date. A plain reading of Paragraph 5 of the notification does not leave any doubt whatsoever that a candidate must be a practising advocate as on the date of notification i.e. on 2.7.1998 and must have so practised for a period of not less than four years. It is true that the petitioner satisfies the second part of the clause (a) of paragraph 5, but he fails to satisfy the first part of paragraph-5 since he was not practising as an advocate as on 2.7.1998.
7. Applications are invited for recruitment by the respondent under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1995. The relevant portion of Rule 5 of the above said rules reads :
5. Method of appointment, qualification and age : In respect of each category of posts specified in column (1) of the Schedule below, the method of appointment and the qualification sha
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.