Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3141
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, S. SRIMATHY, JJ.
Hajee K.E. Mudhammad Ismayil - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department & Ors. - Respondents
WP(MD) No.20455 of 2023
Decided On : 06-03-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Alagumani.
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Ashok, Additional Government Pleader Mr. S. Vinayak, Mr. K. Govindarajan, for Mr. T. Antony Arulraj, Mr. S. Paul Murugesh.
Eligibility for appointment as Law Officer does not require a law degree obtained through regular attendance; previous court decisions on the matter are binding.
Headnote:(A) Mandamus - Writ Petition - Abuse of process of law - The petitioner sought a direction for the completion of an enquiry regarding the eligibility of the 6th respondent as Law Officer, citing irregularities in obtaining her law degree. The court noted that the 6th respondent's qualification was ratified by the Madurai Corporation and that previous petitions on similar grounds had been dismissed. The court emphasized that the service rules did not require the law degree to be obtained through a regular course. (Paras 2, 4, 7, 10, 12)
(B) Writ of Quo Warranto - Eligibility criteria - The court reaffirmed that the eligibility for the Law Officer position does not necessitate a law degree obtained through regular attendance, thus rejecting the petitioner's claims about the 6th respondent's qualifications. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the 6th respondent as Law Officer, claiming her law degree was obtained without permission and not through regular attendance. Previous petitions challenging the appointment had been dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the 6th respondent met the eligibility criteria and her appointment was justified. The practice of filing repetitive petitions was discouraged.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the eligibility of the 6th respondent to hold the position of Law Officer and the repeated litigation by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the service rules did not stipulate that a law degree must be obtained through a regular course, and previous decisions affirming the appointment were binding.
Result: Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with a warning against future frivolous filings.
ORDER :
J. NISHA BANU, J.
This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondent No.5 to complete the enquiry and take action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2022 forwarded by the respondent No.3 through communication letter No.10814/2022 MCA-1 dated 25.07.2022 within a time frame.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that originally, the 6th respondent/Tmt.Sivapackiam was appointed as a Female Nursing Orderly in the Public Health Department of the Madurai Corporation in 1993. Later, she resigned the said post in 1994 and joined as Typist in the General Service Department of the Madurai Corporation. Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant and then Superintendent. Pursuant to creation of the post of Law Officer vide G.O.No.76, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.05.1998, she was appointed as Law Officer on 12.01.2015. He would further state that the 6th respondent has completed LLB three years degree course from Al Ameen Law College at Bangalore, Karnataka State from 1997 to 2000, without attending the college regularly and without even obtaining permission from his employer namely, Madurai Corporation and therefore she is not entitled to hold the post of Law Officer. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the abovesaid relief.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent would state that the present writ petition is the fourth round of litigation filed by the petitioner herein and despite unsuccessful attempts on thrice before this Court by filing W.P(MD)Nos.20251 of 2015, 4095 of 2019 and 15881 of 2021, the present writ petition has been filed. In the first writ petition namely, W.P(MD)No. 20251 of 2015, the Madurai Corporation has filed counter stating that though the 6th respondent acquired LLB without getting permission, it was condoned and ratified by the Corporation and considering the fact that thereafter, the 6th respondent acquired MCA and LLM after obtaining permission from the Corporation, she was appointed as Law Officer. The Writ Court also referring to the service rules of the Corporation, held that the candidate who is having law degree or equivalent degree would be eligible for appointment as Law Officer and there is no mention in the service rules that the candidate should have possessed law degree by regular course. Accordingly, the Writ Court dismissed the first writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent further submitted that the second writ petition namely, W.P(MD)No.4095 of 2019 filed on the same prayer, was dismissed by the Division Bench, holding that it would amount to reviewing the earlier decision of the Division Bench. The third writ petition namely, W.P(MD)No.15881 of 2021 was filed by the very same writ petitioner herein, seeking issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto challenging the appointment of the 6th respondent herein as Law Officer and the Writ Court citing the orders passed in the earlier two writ petitions, dismissed the third writ petition. However, the very same person has now filed the present writ petition with different wordings of prayer seeking Mandamus. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the present writ petition is clearly an abuse of process of law and the writ petitioner is making mockery of the earlier three orders passed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the present writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent / Madurai Corporation have reiterated the grounds raised in the earlier three litigations justifying the appointment of the 6th respondent as Law Officer and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 6th respondent has completed LLB three years degree cou
