M SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. J SIVAGANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. NO. 33524 of 2007 has been filed by a practising Advocate for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3, namely, the Union of India, Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Law Secretary of the Union Territory of Pondicherry to frame rules relating to appointment of District Judges and start the selection process according to law. Such writ petition was filed on 15. 10. 2007 and was admitted on 16. 10. 2007 by a learned single Judge of this Court. In the connected M. P. No. 1 of 2007, the prayer was for staying the selection process, wherein notice was directed to be issued on 16. 10. 2007.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, W. P. No. 35164 of 2007 was filed by another practising Advocate for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the very same respondents as well as the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, who was impleaded as fourth respondent, to frame rules for the Union Territory of Puducherry State Judicial State Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules in terms of the directions given by the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989 dated 21. 3. 2002 and make appointments for the post of District Judge as per the said rules. Such writ petition, which was filed on 13. 11. 2007, came before a Division Bench on 16. 11. 2007. It was directed that notice shall be served on the Government Pleader (Puducherry) representing Respondents 1 to 3 and the Addl. Government Pleader representing Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, on the request of the Government Pleader (Puducherry), the matter was adjourned from time to time to enable him to file counter.

(3.) WHILE considering the question of interim stay, the Government Pleader of Puduchery had submitted that on the basis of the selection made by the High Court, appointment letters have been issued by the Government and sent to the High Court for communication to four Subordinate Judges. At that stage, while granting interim stay of such appointment, this Court suo motu impleaded the four persons who had been selected as Respondents 5 to 8. A petition for vacating the stay had been filed by the newly impleaded Respondent No. 5. Subsequently, another Sub Judge filed a petition for being impleaded, which was allowed by a separate order. A counter was filed by the Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3. A separate counter was filed by the Registrar General, High Court. Counsels who have appeared for the impleaded Respondents 5 to 8 and the impleaded Respondent No. 9 had submitted that there was no factual dispute involved. Since the questions involved in the writ petitions and in the miscellaneous petitions were same and the entire dispute was required to be resolved expeditiously, on the consent of all the counsels appearing for the parties, the writ petitions were heard on merit and judgment was reserved. At that stage, keeping in view the main issues involved, the interim order of stay was modified and the Respondents 5 and 6, who had been selected as Serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the selection list, have been allowed to join by virtue of the order dated 20. 12. 2007, of course subject to the result of the writ petitions.