P. SUBBURAJ Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This WPSR is posted before us for maintainability. The Registry returned the papers raising a query as to how the Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Hon'ble the Governor of Tamil Nadu, and Hon'ble The President of India, who are constitutional authorities be impleaded as respondents 2, 3 and 5. Petitioner replied to the said query by way of his letter dated 24.1.2014 stating certain reasons and not satisfied with the same, the maintainability note was put up, pursuant to which the same is posted before the Court under the caption 'For Maintainability".

(2.) Though the matter is listed under the caption "For Maintainability", the petitioner, who is party-in-person, has addressed the arguments on merits as well. 3-A. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents/Collegium to consider inclusion of his name in the list, in the remaining one vacancy of Judge of the Madras High Court by contending that he enrolled himself as an Advocate on 11.11.1987 and practised for more than 18 years in this Court; that he served as a Notary Public for five years; that on 31.10.2005 he was appointed as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Madurai and served as such for five years, that was upto 30.10.2010 and thus he held the post equal to the cadre of regular District Judge; that he rendered 700 judgments and also claimed to have done some social reforms; that he possess academic qualifications of MA, M.Phil, B.L., and (Ph.D); that he belongs to Arunthathiyar (SC) community; and that no representation for the said community has been given so far. Petitioner further claims to have given his Bio-Data to some of the Hon'ble Judges and sought for a direction to consider his name for the post of Judge of the Madras High Court in the alleged one remaining vacancy.

(3.) The petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, though argued factually, has not chosen to submit any legal submission for issuing such a direction, particularly deprivation of any enforceable right. The appointment of Judges to the High Court and Supreme Court is being carried on by a process as evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgments reported in : (1993) 4 SCC 441 (SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1998 7 SCC 739 (Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, RE); (B. Singh v. Union of India, 2004 AIR(SC) 1923) (para 22). Merely because the petitioner has submitted his Bio-data to some of the Hon'ble Judges, he cannot compel the Collegium of this Court or any other authority to consider his name for elevation as Judge of this Court, as there is no enforceable right available to the petitioner. Hence petitioner's prayer to consider his name for inclusion in the list, in the remaining one vacancy of Judge of Madras High Court, is not maintainable.