S.KASIRAMALINGAM Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, a practising Advocate, has come forward with this writ petition challenging the appointment of the second respondent herein as Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu, with a prayer to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto directing the second respondent to show cause under what authority he is holding the post of Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu and to oust him from the office of the Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu, notified in G. O. Ms. No. 431/Law Officers/23rd May 2011 No. 1/PULO/11(a-1)/2011 on the ground that the second respondent is not qualified for appointment as Advocate General and that he is appointed in violation of Article 165(1) r/w 217(2)(b) with appended explanation (aa) and also under Article 165 r/w Article 319(d) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) During the pendency of this writ petition, another practising Advocate by name Mr. Mahaveer Shivaji, filed M. P. No. 3 of 2012 with a prayer to implead him as the third respondent in the writ petition stating that an important question of constitutional validity is raised by him including fixing of upper age limit for the post of Attorney General of India as well as Advocate General of States.

(3.) When the writ petition was posted for admission, Mr. Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. S. Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader, have taken notice for the first respondent and Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel has taken notice for the second respondent.