A D C GURUSAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioner. This writ petition came up for admission on 22. 11. 1994. After hearing the petitioner for some time it was posted to 23. 11. 1994 with a suggestion to the petitioner that before making further submissions he may look into the decisions of the Supreme Court relating to the subject. The matter was listed on 23. 11. 1994. As per the practice of this Court it was listed in the list of adjourned admissions. On 23. 11. 1994 after the motion cases it was taken up in its order and heard till the rising of the court. Under the circumstances the case was adjourned to today.

(2.) TODAY after finishing the motion cases I reached this matter in the adjourned list and heard the petitioner. At the end of the arguments, when I was about to dictate the order the petitioner submitted that he had sent a telex message to the Honourable the Chief Justice and other two honourable Judges of the Supreme Court at 3. 06 p. m. which reads thus: "my Writ Petition No. 19295 of 1994 interim injunction petition even though listed for three days was not finally heard by justice Shivaraj Patil. Sanctioned strength of Judges has not been filled up for the past two years to Madras High Court. Please withdraw my writ petition and pass interim injunction restraining Union of India from transferring our Judges to other High Court. Since sanctioned strength not filled up the action of union of India is a fraud upon the Constitution.' The loard of this Court being heavy on 22nd, 23rd and 24th, if the petitioner was so particular he should have mentioned to take up the case on priority in the forenoon either yesterday or today.

(3.) THE petitioner contended that he is espousing a public interest and he is not pleading the case of any learned individual Judge. According to him the vacancies in the High Court should be filled up immediately. Even if the initial appointments are to be made from the members of the Bar of one High Court to the other High Courts they could be directly be made to that High Court. But by appointing new Judges to one High Court and transferring them within a short period to other High Courts amounts to playing a fraud on the Constitution. In support of his submission the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and others v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 530: (1971)1 S. C. J. 295: (1971)2 S. C. A. 257, in particular he pointed out paragraph 271 of the said Judgment.