Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2199
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, K.Rajasekar, JJ.
Y.Nelson, Part time Official Receiver – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
W.A.(MD).No.574 of 2018
Decided on : 03-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.K.N.Thampi
The renewal of the term for a part-time Official Receiver is at the discretion of the Government and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Headnote:(A) Letters Patent Act - Section 15 - Writ Appeal against dismissal of Writ Petition challenging appointment of Official Receiver - The appellant's initial appointment was part-time for three years, and the Government's discretion to call for a fresh panel was upheld - The court emphasized that renewal is not a matter of right and the appellant failed to establish a legal right to continuation. (Paras 4, 10, 17, 20)
(B) Administrative Discretion - The Government has the authority to terminate services of a part-time Official Receiver without assigning specific reasons, as per G.O.Ms.No.509 Home (Courts.V) Department dated 01.04.1997. (Paras 6, 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as a part-time Official Receiver and sought an extension after his term expired. The Government opted to call for a fresh panel instead of renewing his term.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant had no legal right to continue beyond the initial term and upheld the Government's decision to call for a fresh panel.
Issues: The main issues included whether the appellant had a right to renewal of his term and the validity of the Government's decision to call for a fresh panel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the renewal of the term is at the Government's discretion and cannot be claimed as a right, emphasizing the interpretation of the relevant rules.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent Act, praying to set aside the order dated 08.02.2018 of this Court made in W.P.(MD).No. 7459 of 2012 on its file, allowing the said Writ Petition.
1. This intra-Court appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.7459 of 2012 dated 08.02.2018.
2. The appellant has filed a Writ Petition challenging the official memorandum dated 24.05.2012 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District, wherein, applications were called for from the eligible Advocates for appointment of Official Receiver for Kanyakumari District.
3. The appellant was initially appointed as Part-time Official Receiver in October 2008 and his term for Office was three years. On 12.09.2011, he submitted an application for declaration of his probation for a total period of three years and for continuation of a further term of three years from 31.10.2011 to 31.10.2014. This letter was forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for the purpose of submitting it to the Government of Tamil Nadu. After receiving the application, the Government, instead of accepting his request, has directed the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to send a fresh panel of Advocates for appointment as Official Receiver in Kanyakumari District. Based on the letter of the Government, the impugned proceedings were initiated by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari. Aggrieved over the impugned proceedings, the appellant sought the relief of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to order continuation of the appellant's term of Office as Official Receiver for three years.
4. The learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the prayer and the submissions of the parties, has observed in paragraph 4 of the order as follows:
“4.The rules relating to appointment of Official Receiver also provides that renewal is prerogative of the Government. The renewal shall be granted by the Government on examination of the particular case. Thus, the renewal can never be claimed as a matter of right. Admittedly, the initial appointment of the writ petitioner is part time receiver, thereafter, the period of 3 years also came to an end on 30.10.2011. This apart, the official memorandum inviting applications from the eligible Advocates cannot be questioned, once the term of the petitioner expired. It is left open to the competent authorities to continue the process for selection to the post of Official Receiver in accordance with law. The writ petitioner has not established any legal right so as to interfere with the official memorandum issued by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District in proceedings dated 24.05.2012.
5. Thus, the writ petitioner has not established any legal right so as to grant the relief as such sought for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. ”
5. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the above Writ Petition, this Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant.
6. Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the scheme of appointment of the Official Receiver, when a person is appointed as Official Receiver, once the probation of three years is completed, he shall be permitted to hold the office till he reaches the age of 60 years. He relied on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.509 Home (Courts.V) Department dated 01.04.1997, wherein, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued the Conditions of Service and its Rules, to substantiate his case. According to him, once the probation period of three years is completed, the service of the person appointed could not be terminated unless the Government issues one month prior notice or if the Government is of the view that there is a need for calling for fresh pane
