K.BHARATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who is an Advocate practising in this Court and who is also the State Convener of Democratic Advocates' Association, has come up with the above Writ Petition, seeking the issue of a Writ of quo warranto, questioning the authority of the Third Respondent to continue in Office. Heard Mr. K. Bharathi, the Petitioner-in-person.

(2.) The Third Respondent belonged to the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tamil Nadu. His name was recommended for elevation to the Bench of this Court by the Collegium of Judges of this Court. After the approval of the said recommendation, by the Collegium of the Supreme Court, the Third Respondent was appointed as an Additional Judge of this Court by a Warrant issued by the President of India in terms of the Article 217 of the Constitution of India. He assumed Office on 26.3.2012.

(3.) The Petitioner has not raised any objection to the appointment of the Third Respondent as such. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Third Respondent had suffered any disqualification at the time when his name was recommended for appointment or at the time when the Warrant of Appointment was actually issued. There is no dispute about the fact that the Third Respondent is also qualified for appointment to the post of Additional Judge of this Court in terms of Clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India.