The main legal point established is that the reservation policy does not apply to the appointment of Law Officers by the government, as their appointment is not a civil post and the relationship between the government and the Law Officer is purely professional.

ORDER :

Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, J.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling the Impugned Rules Notification No.119 G.O.Ms.No.369 Public (Law Officers) dated 29.04.2017 and quash the same and directing these respondents herein to frame a new rule to ensure transparency as per the Apex Court Judgment and ensure adequate representation to women, SC/STs and Minorities and public notification for inviting applications from the all eligible advocate candidates in the appointment of Law Officers.

The instant writ petition is filed impugning the “Appointment of Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017” incorporated vide Notification No.119, under G.O.Ms.No.369, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 29.4.2017. The petitioner further seeks directions to frame new rules to ensure transparency; adequate representation to women, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and minorities; and to issue public notification for inviting applications from all the eligible candidates for appointment as Law Officers.

2.1. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the applicants in the impleading petition strenuously contend that the Appointment of Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017 [for brevity, “the Rules of 2017”] are framed vide G.O.Ms.No.369, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 29.4.2017 with a view to bring transparency, however, the Rules of 2017 nowhere provide for reservation in appointment.

2.2. It is submitted that, even if it is assumed that the Law Officers hold temporary appointments, as per O.M.No.27/4/67(II)-Estt.(SCT), dated 24.9.1968, reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is provided in all temporary appointments, except the appointments which are to last for less than 45 days. Reliance is also placed on O.M.No. 36063/3/2018-Estt (Res), dated 15.5.2018. Inasmuch as no reservation is provided in the Rules of 2017, it is submitted that the impugned Rules are arbitrary, unjust and liable to be quashed.

2.3. It is further submitted that the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Estt.(Estt. Reservation-I), has also issued Office Memorandum dated 21.11.2022, which reaffirms the Office Memorandum dated 24.9.1968 providing reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in all temporary appointments, except the appointments which are to last for less than 45 days.

2.4. It is submitted that, in the information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it has been specifically stated that reservation is not followed in the appointment of Law Officers in the High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai. The reason given is that the Law Officers are engaged on contractual basis. While appointing the Law Officers, no written test or interview is conducted. No proper scrutiny of the applications is made. Out of 2485 applicants, 192 were selected and appointed. The said process was not transparent. The basis upon which the selection was made and the procedure followed was not at all revealed by the government. In order to uphold the already downtrodden, vulnerable and oppressed groups of the society, a fair and transparent procedure is to be adopted and inasmuch as there is no provision for reservation, the Rules of 2017 are liable to be quashed.

2.5. Learned counsel further submit that the Social Justice Monitoring Committee, upon receipt of the representation dated 5.2.2022 from the impleading applicant, addressed a letter on 30.6.2022 to the Secretary to Government, Legal Affairs Department, wherein the contention of the impleading applicant that no reservation of 19% for SC/ST and 30% for women in appointment of Law Officers to the Madras High Court and its Madurai Bench and so also the Subordinate Courts was pointed out. It is was al