Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
A. Syed Hassan
Versus
The Principal District Judge, Villupuram District & Others
Writ Petition No.21833 of 2008
Decided On : 19-11-2008
(B) Independence of Judiciary-Wider concept-Includes independence from many other pressures and prejudices-It is the foundation of the Democratic polity of the country.
The concept of independence of judiciary is a noble one, which inspires the constitutional scheme and constitutes the foundation on which rests the edifice of our democratic polity. The concept of independence of judiciary is not limited only to independence from executive pressure or influence but it is a much wider concept which takes within its sweep the independence from many other pressures and prejudices. Para 11
(C) Separation of Powers- Executive and Judiciary are independent of their function and control from each other-Executive instructions banning recruitment to judiciary-It affects the pillar of the entire judicial system.
The executive and judiciary are independent of their control and co-ordination and they should be independent of their functions. Any amount of deviation in their control will cause certain hardship to each other. There cannot be any executive order and instructions to impose conditions regarding judicial appointments, particularly subordinate Courts, which is the pillar of the entire judicial system. Para 13
(D) Constitution of India, Art.235-Powers of High Court over subordinate judiciary-High court alone decide requirement of staffs of subordinate judiciary.
The High Court, which is vested with the control of the subordinate judiciary under Art.235 can alone decide whether there should be a ban on recruitment or more employees are required for proper functioning of subordinate Courts. Para 19
(E) Appointments-Subordinate Judiciary-Understaffing affects its efficiency-Appointments to be given paramount importance.
The exclusive power of the appointment of officers and servants of the subordinate judiciary has to be looked into in the light of the constitutional mandate of maintaining the independent jurisdictional limits of the co-ordinate organs, resulting in the normal functioning of the Courts.
Para 20
(F) Separation of Powers-Independence of Judiciary-Constitutional mandate-Exclusive power of appointment to High Court -maintains independency of judiciary. Para 20
(G) Sovereign Power-Distributed between various organs-Independence of judiciary-Scope-Wider-It has many dimensions-Includes independence from any pressure or prejudice.
The concept of "judicial independence" is a wider one taking within its sweep independence from any other pressure or prejudice. It has many dimensions, namely, fearlessness of other power centres, economical or political, and freedom from prejudices. The Constitution of India has delineated distribution of sovereign power among the legislature, executive and judiciary and they have to function independently. Para-27
V. Dhanapalan, J.
Petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to set aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent in A.No.338 of 2002 dated 05.08.2008 and direct the respondents to continue him in service and to regularize his service in the post of Junior Assistant.
2. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit, is as under:
The petitioners father, by name, I. Syed Akbar, who was employed as Head Clerk in the Principal District Munsif Court at Villupuram died on 11. 2001, while in service. Pursuant to his fathers death, the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent for compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant, as he possessed requisite qualification. After careful consideration of the application made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent herein appointed the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the Principal Sub Court at Tindivanam on compassionate grounds. In pursuance of the order of appointment, the petitioner joined duty on 07.03.2002 and continued in service unblemished. While so, the 1st respondent passed an order of cancellation of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner vide proceedings in A.No.338/2002 dated 05.08.2008 on the ground that the Government had rejected the proposal of the High Court, Madras, for regularizing the service of the petitioner, who was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 211. 2001, the ban imposed for appointment on compassionate grounds was in existence in the entire departments of Government including High Court, Madras and it also clarified that the ban on filling up of posts on compassionate grounds was in existence and that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is before this court.
3. The averments of the petitioner that his father died on 11. 2001 while in service; his application to the Principal District Judge, Villupuram on 04.02.2002 seeking appointment as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds and his appointment as Junior Assistant temporarily in the Principal Sub-Court at Tindivanam by the then Principal District Judge, Villupuram vide his proceedings in A.No.338 of 2002 dated 05.03.2002 are admitted by the 1st respondent herein in his counter.
3(a). The 1st respondent in his counter has stated that pursuant to the appointment of the petitioner, the then Principal District Judge, Villupuram in A.No.338 of 2002, dated 15.04.2002 addressed the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Chennai-9 through the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, the proposal for regularisation of services of the petitioner. On a perusal of the proposal, the High Court, Madras, vide its Letter dated 012. 2004 in R.O.C.No.1894/2002/C4 sought clarification from the Principal District Judge, Villupuram that the temporary appointment of the petitioner was made on 05.03.2002, which is subsequent to the date of the ban imposed by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 211. 2001, to fill up vacant posts. In the letter submitted by the then Principal District Judge, Villupuram in A.No.338 of 2002, dated 03.01.2005 to the High Court, Madras, it is stated that G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 211. 2001 did not speak about the appointment on compassionate grounds and it is only in the Government Letter No.15192/Cts.V/2002-1 dated 04.03.2002, the Government has clarified that the ban is applicable for appointments on compassionate grounds also. The 1st respondent has clearly stated in his counter that the said Government Letter was received by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram only on 05.04.2002, i.e. after the order of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds was passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram on 05.03.2002.
3(b). The 1st respondent has further stated in his counte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
