Ramakrishnan v. The District Collector Cum District Magistrate
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1138 to 1140 of 2022 Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner versus The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Notification Roc.D2/5935/2021 dated 09.12.2021 issued by the respondent herein and quash the same as illegal, discriminatory and against the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondent to publish fresh notification with details of mode of selection process, members of selection committee and date of selection in Newspaper and official web-site. For Petitioner : M/s.A.Banumathy For Respondent : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, Government Advocate 1/5
ORDER
This writ petition is filed against the Notification of the District Collector, Sivagangai District, issued in Roc.D2/5935/2021 dated 09.12.2021.
2. By the impugned Notification dated 09.12.2021, the respondent/District Collector cum District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, invited applications for appointment of Pleader in the Courts, Manamadurai in Sivagangai District on tenure basis. The said Notification was also published in the Notice Board of the office of the District Collector, Sivagangai District.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Notification was not properly published in Newspapers and also in the official web-site. Therefore, the candidates throughout the State may not have an opportunity to participate in the selection process.
2/5
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the Notification was issued inviting applications only for the purpose of appointment of Pleader on tenure basis to the Courts at Manamadurai. The said Notification was published in the Notice Board of the office of the District Collector. The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate at Manamadurai, was aware of the said Notification. He had also taken a copy of the Notification published in the Notice Board of the office of the District Collector and filed the present writ petition.
5. It appears that the petitioner and other advocates, who are practising at Manamadurai and Sivagangai, are aware of the impugned Notification issued by the respondent. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Notification was not published widely in Newspapers, enabling the Advocates, who are practising all over Tamilnadu to participate in the selection process. The procedure to the 3/5
appointment of Law Officer, this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.12951 of 2017 and also in W.P.(MD)No.9830 of 2021, issued certain guidelines and observed that there is no such mandatory procedure for appointment of Law Officer to publish the advertisement in the Newspaper. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27.01.2022 ogy To The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
4/5
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy 27.01.2022 5/5