A.KANNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by a practising Advocate before this Court, styled as a public interest litigation, seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash G.O.Ms.No.590, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 04.09.2019, by which certain amendments were made to the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Rule and the amended Rule").

(2.) According to the petitioner, the impugned amended Rule is against the directions issued by the Honourable First Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12951 of 2017, dated 28.04.2018, in the case of V.Vasanthakumar vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and therefore, seeks for a direction upon the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint law officers for this Court in consonance with the verdict of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal [(2016) 3 MLJ 776 (SC)J by inviting applications from all eligible advocates aspiring for the said post, by issuing a notification providing equal opportunity to them, by assessing their suitability and professional competency by adopting a selection process by way of competitive examination with regard to the practice in the High Court, such as, independent drafting and pleading on their own or in the alternate, to follow a transparent selection process in the manner known to law by adhering to the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, by uploading all stages of the selection process in the official website of the second respondent within a time limit fixed by this Court and to direct the fifth respondent to upload the antecedent reports of the law officers appointed in the Police Department's official website and to direct the seventh respondent to upload the details of the law officers, their academic qualification and pendency of disciplinary proceedings in the official website of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.

(3.) We have heard Mr.A.Kannan, appearing in person and Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6.