Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN, ACJ., MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
D. Almas Banu - Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep. By its Secretary and Anr. – Respondents
W.A. No.813 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.5586 of 2024
Decided On : 12-07-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to eligibility for legal post due to employment. (Para 1) |
| 2. background on the appellant's qualifications. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's analysis of the learned judge's findings. (Para 3) |
| 4. appellant's arguments against the learned judge's ruling. (Para 4) |
| 5. respondents' defense supporting the learned judge's ruling. (Para 5) |
| 6. court's discussion on public prosecutor's role and expectations. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 7. role and qualifications of the assistant public prosecutor. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 8. eligibility criteria and its strict interpretation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 9. conclusion reached regarding dismissal based on eligibility. (Para 15) |
| 10. interpretation of rule 49 concerning employment and practice. (Para 16 , 19) |
| 11. distinction between attending and conducting cases. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 12. conclusion on the necessity of experience in practice. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 13. final ruling and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
1. The present writ appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.02.2022 in W.P.No. 32753 of 2022 insofar as it finds that the appellant herein is not eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II in terms of the Notification dated 25.08.2021.
2. Brief facts:
2.1. The appellant was a Law graduate and enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on 22.09.2010. Since then, it is submitted that the appellant was practicing in all Courts including High Court and Subordinate Court in Chennai for more than 5 years. While so, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Manager (Legal) on contract basis by Chennai Metro Rail Ltd (in short “CMRL”) on 17.09.2016.
2.2. The 1st respondent issued Notification No.10/2021 dated 25.08.2021, calling for applications for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II, in the Prosecution Department in the Tamil Nadu General Service. Preliminary Examination and Main Written Examination were held on 06.11.2021, 07.05.2022 and 08.05.2022. The appellant cleared the said examinations. Thereafter, Oral Test by way of an interview was held on 01.12.2022 and 02.12.2022. When the appellant appeared for the Oral Test, a question was put to her by the 1st respondent as to whether the appellant suspended her practice in terms of BCI Rules 43 and 49 during her employment with CMRL. The appellant answered in the negative. The 1st respondent then orally informed the appellant of rejection of her application.
2.3. A writ petition was filed before this Court in W.P.No.32753 of 2022, to direct the first respondent to consider the appellant for appointment for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II pursuant to the Notification No.10/2021 dated 25.08.2021. The above writ petition stood dismissed by the learned Judge. The present writ appeal is against the said order of the learned Judge.
3. Order of the learned Judge:
The learned Judge found that the appellant does not satisfy the requisite eligibility criteria to apply to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II, in terms of the Notification dated 25.08.2021 inter alia for the following reasons:
a. The appellant while submitting the application suppressed material facts inasmuch as on being appointed as Assistant Manager (Legal) in CMRL, she ought to have, but failed to temporarily suspend her practice with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
b. In terms of Rule 49 of BCI Rules, an advocate on taking up employment must intimate the same to the Bar Council and shall thereupon cease to practise as an advocate so long as the advocate continues in such employment. Failure to inform her employment with CMRL, to the Bar Council is a gross violation of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules thereby rendering the appellant ineligible to apply to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II in terms of the Notification.
c. That the appellant was only assisting the Advocate appearing for CMRL in terms of the Work Allocation ma
Eligibility criteria for public service roles must be strictly adhered to, requiring ongoing active legal practice as defined in notifications and Bar Council rules.
The demand for court orders by the State Govt. from selected candidates for the posts of ADAs and DDAs was not sustainable in law, arbitrary, and unjustified.
The eligibility criterion of 'having been continuously practicing as an Advocate for not less than seven years' as per Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules does not require an inquiry into the specific functi....
The State Government must conform to statutory procedures when making appointments to public offices to ensure the rule of law is upheld.
The court affirmed that the recruitment process must adhere to the established criteria without post-selection alterations by the State, emphasizing the Commission's authority in candidate selection.
Eligibility for limited direct recruitment under promotion rules strictly per cut-off date in advertisement/rules; part-time/contingent services not countable unless specified; mere test qualificatio....
The requirement of continuous practice for seven years under Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules aligns with Article 233(2) of the Constitution, validating the rule's constitutiona....
The eligibility of any candidate is to be reckoned from the date of the selection and appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
