2012 Supreme(Mad) 894

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUS SUNDRESH
Adv. R. Krishnamurthy
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government Home Dep Another
W.P.Nos.1932, 2141, 2353, 2363, 2457, 2537, 2566, 2549, 2652, 2916, 2960, 2 3201, 3210, 3302, 3308, 3324, 3348, 3364, 3365, 3413, 3441, 3449, 3450, 3662, 3673, 395 2012 & W.P.(MD)Nos.1482, 1483, 1450 to 1454, 1595 and 1915 of 2012 & connected mis petitions
Decided On : 21-02-2012

The relaxation of statutory rules and regulations by the executive power of the State is permissible in peculiar situations where statutory provisions cannot be operated, provided that such relaxation is done in consultation with the relevant authorities and is reasonable and justifiable.

Headnote:

The High Court of Madras dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the impugned Government Order and notification issued by the State Government and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) for the recruitment of 185 Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the State. The petitioners, comprising practicing advocates, fresh law graduates, and others, raised various objections to the recruitment process, including the relaxation of age criteria, the exclusion of service candidates, and the alleged lack of consultation with the TNPSC.

Fact of the Case:

The State Government, in consultation with the High Court, issued a Government Order relaxing Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, to enable the High Court to conduct the recruitment process for 185 Civil Judges (Junior Division) posts. The impugned notification invited applications for the said posts, specifying eligibility criteria, including age limits and educational qualifications.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the impugned Government Order and notification were valid and did not violate any statutory provisions or constitutional rights. The Court noted that the relaxation of Rule 5 was permissible under the rules and was done in consultation with the High Court, which had the primary responsibility for setting question papers and conducting viva-voce examinations. The Court also rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding the exclusion of service candidates and the alleged lack of consultation with the TNPSC, finding that the Government had the discretion to determine the eligibility criteria and that consultation with the TNPSC was not mandatory.

Issues: 1. Whether the relaxation of Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, was permissible and done in accordance with the law. 2. Whether the exclusion of service candidates from the recruitment process was discriminatory and violative of their constitutional rights. 3. Whether the Government's consultation with the TNPSC was adequate and complied with the relevant statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The relaxation of Rule 5 was permissible under the rules and was done in consultation with the High Court, which had the primary responsibility for setting question papers and conducting viva-voce examinations. The Court relied on the judgment in State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia and Others, where the Supreme Court held that the executive power of the State cannot be exercised in the field already occupied by laws made by the legislature. However, in peculiar situations, where statutory provisions could not be operated, the executive power of the State could be exercised to fill the gap. 2. The exclusion of service candidates from the recruitment process was not discriminatory and did not violate their constitutional rights. The Court held that the Government had the discretion to determine the eligibility criteria for the recruitment process and that the exclusion of service candidates was a reasonable and justifiable measure to ensure a fair and competitive selection process. 3. The Government's consultation with the TNPSC was adequate and complied with the relevant statutory provisions. The Court held that consultation with the TNPSC was not mandatory and that the Government had fulfilled its obligation by seeking the TNPSC's consent before issuing the impugned Government Order and notification.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the impugned Government Order and notification. The Court directed the Government and the Administrative Side of the High Court to take steps to make appropriate amendments to the concerned rule to avoid any ambiguity in the future. The Court also directed that nine backlog vacancies would be filled up first as per the roster, and closed W.P. No.2961 of 2012 accordingly.