M RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. Radhakrishnan in person, who is a practising advocate of this Court and also the learned Government Pleader for the State. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notification issued by the Government in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 19.1.2007, prescribing therein the method of appointment, qualification and age for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), hereinafter referred to as 'the said post'. The petitioner-in-person submits that while prescribing qualification for appointment to the aforesaid post, in Column-4, the following qualification has been prescribed :

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, such a qualification goes against the very concept of a judicial office. ACCORDING to him, a person who is eligible to be enrolled may also mean a person who has not applied for enrolment, even though he may be eligible, but such a person has the requisite qualification under the impugned rules to apply for being considered for appointment to the said post.

(3.) THIS Court finds that the aforesaid rules have been framed by the State Government after due consultation with the High Court and it is expected that the High Court has duly applied its mind to the aforesaid question and the decisions of the Apex Court. We are also of the opinion that an applicant for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) should not only be eligible for being enrolled, but must apply for being enrolled. We find that the said view which we have taken is consistent with the advertisement which has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission pursuant to the aforesaid notification.