S. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging two selection of appointments of Law Officers. The petitioner has applied for the subsequent filling-up of the post through his application dated 13.08.2018. He was not considered for any of the posts that he applied. Now, apart from challenging the selection process, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the application has been made for the subsequent selection, inasmuch as when the earlier selection was not in accordance with law and in the event of the same being set aside, he would be in a position to be considered. There is a overwhelming public interest involved. The persons, who have no sufficient practice, have been considered and appointed. Therefore, the writ petition will have to be entertained. On the objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prayer as sought for as against the Office of the Advocate General is also maintainable, as serious allegations have been made in the form of complaints, which if found to be true, the consequences will have to follow.

(3.) The learned Additional Advocate General raised an issue of maintainability with respect to the locus of the petitioner and the prayer as sought for. It is submitted by him that the petitioner cannot mix a public interest litigation with a private interest litigation. For the reasons known, the petitioner did not challenge the earlier selection, while not participating in it. A writ petition is also pending consideration before this Court with respect to the earlier selection made.