S M DEENADAYALAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 22.04.2010, for appointment as Senior Standing Counsel for handling of Indirect Taxation cases before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, as per the merit list recommended by the Fifth Respondent Committee dated 15.02.2008, without conducting a fresh evaluation procedure.

(2.) IN pursuance to a letter sent by the respondents the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chief Commissioner's Office, Customs House, Chennai, to the Madras High Court Bar Association requesting to sponsor the names of the eligible advocates for selection of Senior/Junior Standing Counsels for the Post of Senior Standing Counsels and Post of Junior Standing Counsels to represent the cases relating to INdirect Taxation before the Hon'ble High Courts/Other Judicial Bodies, sufficient number of candidates were not forwarded. Therefore, an advertisement was given in the leading newspapers on 10.01.2008 and on 11.01.2008 calling for eligible candidates to apply for the Post of Senior Standing Counsels and Post of Junior Standing Counsels to represent the cases relating to INdirect Taxation before the Hon'ble High Courts.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the respondents on their own came forward to fill up the vacancies caused in the panel constituted and to meet out the enormous workload of cases and after notifying the requisite number of qualified candidates who are having a considerable standing in the bar to the post of Senior as well as Junior Standing Counsels to handle the taxation matters, the petitioner was found one of the meritorious candidates by them in as much as when the petitioner after complying all the necessary formalities, participated in the interview and he was also considered by the Board as one of the meritorious candidates since he is already serving as a Special Public Prosecutor in the High Court. Moreover, the record shows that the petitioner's name was recommended by the Chief Commissioner of Customs & Excise for the panel. But even after the recommendation made by the Chief Commissioner of Customs & Excise, for empanelment, the Board had not appointed the petitioner for the said post for which he was selected by the Selection Committee. THEreafter, the petitioner also sent letters to the Hon'ble Finance Minister, New Delhi, chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, new Delhi and Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to consider his name in the vacant post specifically mentioning that if for any reason, the respondents are of the view that the petitioner's holding the post of Special Public Prosecutor is in any manner going to be a stumbling block, he offered to resign his post from the post of Special Public Prosecutor with a condition that he should be given appointment as Senior Standing Counsel for the Customs and Central Excise Department as found in the Selection List No.3.