P. Ramasamy Vs. the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary

P. Ramasamy vs The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 17, 1998

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/829475

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/829475
Court: Chennai High Court
Decided On: Sep 17, 1998
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 141; [A.P. Shah, C.J., F.M. Ibrahim Kaliffulla &V. Ramasubramanian, JJ] Reference to Larger Bench - Precedent - Full Bench decision Held, It is binding on the Division Bench. Only if the Full Bench comes to conclusion that earlier Full Bench decision is incorrect, there is scope fo...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P. Ramasamy

Respondent

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)1MLJ1

Excerpt

- constitution of india article 141; [a.p. shah, c.j., f.m. ibrahim kaliffulla &v. ramasubramanian, jj] reference to larger bench - precedent - full bench decision held, it is binding on the division bench. only if the full bench comes to conclusion that earlier full bench decision is incorrect, there is scope for making reference to larger bench. division bench doubting correctness of full bench decision cannot direct registry for placing papers before chief justice to make reference to larger bench. .....before joining service. learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner satisfies the requirement that he should have four years bar experience, though he has ceased to practice as an advocate as on 2.7.1998 in view of the fact that he has joined service in the judicial department.6. we have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. the notification issued by the respondent clearly states that a candidate on the date of notification, i.e., on 2.7.1998 must be (a) practising as an advocate or pleader and must have so practised for a period of not less than four years as on the said date. a plain reading of paragraph-5 of the notification does not leave any doubt whatsoever, that a candidate must be a practising advocate as on the date of notification i.e., on 2.7.1998 and must have so practised for a period of not less than four years. it is true that the petitioner satisfies the second part of the clause (a) of para-graph-5, but he fails to satisfy the first part of paragraph-5 since he was not practising as an advocate as on 2.7.1998.7. applications are invited for recruitment by the respondent under the tamil nadu state judicial services (cadre and recruitment) rules, 1995. the relevant portion of rule 5 of the above said rules reads:5. method of appointment, qualification and age: in respect of each category of posts specified in column (1) of the schedule below, the method of appointment and the qualification shall be specified in the corresponding entries in columns (2) and (3) thereof:categorymethod of appointmentqualification4. civiljudge (junior division/judicial magistrate, first class)by direct recruitment on the basis ofwritten examination/and viva voce examination conducted by the tamilnadu public service commission in accordance with the rules specified in theannexure to these rules.1. must be aholder of a degree in law.2. must on the date of notification be:(a) practising as an advocate or pleader.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Shivaraj Patil, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Memorandum No. 6746/APD-CJA/98 dated 11.09.1998 on the file of the respondent, quash the same and further direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's application as valid application as per notification dated 2.7.1998 and pass such further orders as it may deem fit.

3. The impugned memorandum reads:-

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

Memorandum No. 6746/APD-CJA/98 Dated 11.9.98.

Sub: Recruitment (Direct) - Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service - Application rejected - Regarding.

Ref: Application from Thiru P. Ramassamy.

Thiru P. Ramassamy (Appln. No. 211188) is informed that his application for direct recruitment to the post of civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service has been rejected for the following reason:

According to para 5 of the Commission's Notification dated 2.7.98, the candidate must be practising as an advocate or pleader or working as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I or Grade II and must have so practised/worked for a period of not less than 4 years, as on the said date, whereas the candidate is working as Junior Clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pondicherry. 2. Requests for reconsideration of this memo will receive no attention.

A.V. Seshadri

Deputy Secretary

Sd/(11.9.1998)'

Section Officer.

4. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not a practising advocate as on 2.7.1998 and was working as Junior Clerk on that date. According to the notification dated 2.7.1998 issued by the respondent, advocate practising as on the date of the said notification, having four years of practice was eligible to apply. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a practising advocate as on 2.7.1998.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, based on the general instructions, issued by the respondent submitted that a person in the service of Indian Union or of a state in India or in the employment of local bodies or Universities need apply through the competent authorities with their 'no objection certificates'. According to him, this instruction is an indication that the petitioner, even though was working as a clerk as on 2.7.1998, could apply through proper channel and he had practised for about seven years before joining service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner satisfies the requirement that he should have four years bar experience, though he has ceased to practice as an advocate as on 2.7.1998 in view of the fact that he has joined service in the judicial department.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The notification issued by the respondent clearly states that a candidate on the date of notification, i.e., on 2.7.1998 must be (a) practising as an Advocate or pleader and must have so practised for a period of not less than four years as on the said date. A plain reading of Paragraph-5 of the notification does not leave any doubt whatsoever, that a candidate must be a practising advocate as on the date of notification i.e., on 2.7.1998 and must have so practised for a period of not less than four years. It is true that the petitioner satisfies the second part of the Clause (a) of para-graph-5, but he fails to satisfy the first part of paragraph-5 since he was not practising as an advocate as on 2.7.1998.

7. Applications are invited for recruitment by the respondent under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1995. The relevant portion of Rule 5 of the above said Rules reads:

5. Method of appointment, qualification and age: In respect of each category of posts specified in column (1) of the Schedule below, the method of appointment and the qualification shall be specified in the corresponding entries in columns (2) and (3) thereof: