Qualification as on date of application alone are to be considered.

S.S. SUBRAMANI, J.:

1. The High Court of Judica-ture at Madras, first respondent in both these writ petitions, invited applications for filling up the post of Librarian. Third respondent herein was appointed. The same is challenged by petitioner in W.P.No.12574 of 1991.

2. Before coming to discuss these writ petitions, certain facts require narration.

3. The Government of Tamil Nadu, as per G.O.Ms.No.1912 (Home), dated 1.9.1988, sanctioned the employment of a Librarian for a period of one year from the date of employment or till the need ceases, whichever is earlier. For one temporary post of Librarian and two Technical Assistant for the Library of High Court, Madras, applications were invited, and it was found that there were 23 applicants for the post of Librarian. Dr.David Annoussami, J. a learned Judge of this Court, was requested to conduct an interview to select a suitable candidate. The interview could not be conducted since the learned Judge was appointed as Vice Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. Therefore, S.Ramalingam, J. was requested to conduct the interview. When the file was perused, S.Ramalingam, J. found that the qualification mentioned in the advertisement was not inconformity with the orders of the then Hon’ble The Officiating Chief Justice (Hon’ble S.Mohan, J.) and suggested for fresh advertisement calling for applications for the post of Librarian. By that time, the period mentioned in the Notification was about to be over. Since the post was revalidated twice after the original sanction and since it was felt that the post should not be allowed to lapse, the then officiating Chief Justice appointed the third respondent, one of the applicants temporarily under Rules 15(a) and 15(c) of the Madras High Court Service Rules, pending regular appointment to be made to the post. Fresh advertisement inviting application for the post of Librarian was made as per the suggestion of S.Ramalingam, J. The appointment of third respondent was questioned by the present petitioner in W.P.No.8506 of 1989 to wherein he wanted the quashing of the appointment of third respondent, and prayed that he may be appointed in at post. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed that writ petition with an observation at it is open to the petitioner to apply pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.8.1989. Against that order, petitioner herein filed Writ Appeal No.690 of 1989. Pending Appeal, the appointment of third respondent made temporarily also got lapsed from 8.9.1989. Writ Appeal No.690 of 1989 came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. Before the Bench, the question was regarding the validity of the temporary appointment of third respondent, and finally. Their Lordships said that ‘when Rule 15(a) of the Rules had been invoked under the circumstances, as between an outsider ( i.e. Tmt.M.Santhanam) and one already in service (Thiru.N.Vijayakumar) and when both the them not being fully qualified as advertised on 28.1.1989 and even as per executive order dated 4.1.1989, third respondent (Tmt.M.Santhanam) could not have been preferred to that of the appellant (Thiru. N.Vijayakumar), she having ceased to hold office on 9.9.1989, and now that a fresh advertisement having been made on 30.8.1989, calling for applications, it is now for the Registry to seek for extention of time from Government and complete the process of selection and appointment for the post of Librarian expeditiously from and out of the applications received pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.8.1989. The applications received based on advertisements dated 28.1.1989 and 30.1.1989 cannot be considered at all. With these directions, this writ appeal is allowed. No costs. [Italics added]

4. Writ Petition No.3394 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents therein to comply with the direction in Writ Appeal No.690 of 1989 dated 15.12.1989, to complete the process of selec