K.N.BASHA, J. & N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.

The writ petitioner, a practising Advocate, has come forward with this writ petition challenging the appointment of the second respondent herein as Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu, with a prayer to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto directing the second respondent to show cause under what authority he is holding the post of Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu and to oust him from the office of the Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu, notified in G.O.Ms.No.431/Law Officers/23rd May 2011 No.1/PULO/11(a-1)/2011 on the ground that the second respondent is not qualified for appointment as Advocate General and that he is appointed in violation of Article 165(1) r/w 217(2)(b) with appended explanation (aa) and also under Article 165 r/w Article 319(d) of the Constitution of India.

2. During the pendency of this writ petition, another practising Advocate by name Mr.Mahaveer Shivaji, filed M.P.No.3 of 2012 with a prayer to implead him as the third respondent in the writ petition stating that an important question of constitutional validity is raised by him including fixing of upper age limit for the post of Attorney General of India as well as Advocate General of States.

3. When the writ petition was posted for admission, Mr.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader, have taken notice for the first respondent and Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel has taken notice for the second respondent.

4. As the facts involved in this case are not disputed, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent, the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that they need not file any counter-affidavit, and that they will make their legal submissions.

5. Pursuant to the above submission, the learned petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person; learned impleading petitioner, who also appeared in person; Mr.PH.Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent; Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent made their submission elaborately.

6. The learned petitioner argued at length by taking us through the relevant constitutional provisions as well as the constitutional debate in respect of the amendment of the provision under Article 319(d) of the Constitution of India. The learned petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, mainly raised two grounds in this petition as follows :

(i) The second respondent, having been appointed as Advocate General under Article 165 of the Constitution of India, must satisfy the qualification prescribed under Article 217(2)(b), i.e., ten years of continuous practice as an Advocate of a High Court immediately preceding his appointment as Advocate General.

(ii) The second respondent, who held the post of Member of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "TNPSC") from 16.06.2004 to 26.03.2008, is prohibited from accepting any employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of Tamil Nadu as per provision under Article 319(d) of the Constitution of India.

7. In order to substantiate the above two contentions, the learned petitioner/party-in-person has taken us through the relevant provisions, namely, Articles 165, 217 (2)(b) as well as 319 of the Constitution of India. The learned petitioner submitted that the provisions of Article 217(2)(b) has been amended by 44th Amendment Act, which came into force on 20.06.1979 and consequently, the earlier judgments rendered based on the then existing article are not relevant. The learned petitioner also submitted that the second respondent, having been appointed as Member of the TNPSC in the year 2004 and served till he resigned the said post in the year 2008, suspended his practice during the said p