Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.03.2012CORAM:THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNAandTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESHW.P. 7418 of 2012 and M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2012V. TamilarasanPetitionervs.1The Principal Secretary to GovernmentHome DepartmentSecretariatFort St. GeorgeChennai 600 0092The Registrar GeneralHigh Court of MadrasChennai 600 104RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Serial No.1368 in Application No.10043 pertaining to the rejection order published in Web Site vide maintained by Hon'bleMadras High Court with regard to recruitment of Civil Judge – 2012insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to permit the petitioner to take part in the recruitment process of selection of the CivilJudge post in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service – 2012.For petitioner Mr.

R. KumaravelFor R1 Mr. M.C. Swamy Special Government PleaderFor R2 Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Sr. Counsel for Mr. R. TholkappianORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.M. SUNDRESH, J.)Pursuant to the notification dated 21.01.2012 issued by the second respondent calling for applications for the post of CivilJudge (Junior Division), the petitioner made his application. His https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application was rejected by the order impugned on the ground that he had not enclosed his Degree and Law certificates, apart from having been involved in criminal case. Challenging the said rejection, the present writ petition has been filed.2The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though a case has been registered for the alleged offences under Section 147, 294(b), 323, 355 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, no further progress has been made in the case and the petitioner has also stated the above said fact in the prescribed form.

Furthersubmission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that not enclosing the Degree and Law certificates cannot be construed as fatal since the petitioner is a practising lawyer and he has enclosed other certificates.3The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that admittedly, Clause 16 of the application has not been challenged; the petitioner was specifically asked to indicate as to whether he is involved / convicted in a criminal case; since there is no dispute on facts that a complaint for cognizableoffence is pending, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered; considering the nature of job that the petitioner is likely to undertake in the event of his selection which involves a high degree of integrity, character and honesty, the order impugned will have tobe sustained; further, the petitioner, having admitted that he is involved in criminal case, without challenging the application, cannot turn around and say that notwithstanding the said fact, he should be allowed to sit for the examination.4The facts are not in dispute.

Admittedly, a case has been registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Section 147, 294(b), 323, 355 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Codein Crime No.532 of 2010.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the final report is yet to be filed. Be that as it may. The petitioner has not challenged the clause in the application which requires the candidate to indicate as to whether he is involved in criminal case or not. Having mentioned in the application that he is involved in criminal case, the petitioner cannot file this witpetition which would indirectly amount to challenging the very clause in the application itself. Therefore, the petitioner is estoppedfrom challenging the consequential order impugned.5Considering the duty and the nature of work of a JudicialOfficer, it has been held by the Apex Court in Nawal Singh vs. Stateof Uttar Pradesh, (2003) 8 SCC 117, in the following manner: "At the outset, it is to be reiterated that the judicial service is not a service in the sense of anemployment.

Judges are discharging their functions while https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. . ." The above said judgment of the Apex Court has been quoted with approval by a recent pronouncement in Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2011) 1 MLJ 143 (SC). A very same view has also been taken in yet another recent pronouncement in RajendraSingh Verma (dead) through LRs. and Others vs. Lieutenant Governor(NCT of Delhi) and others, in (2011) 10 SCC 1. Paragraph no.81 of the said Apex Court judgment which reads as follows, is apposite. "Judicial service is not a service in the sense of anemployment as is commonly understood. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation.

There is no manner of doubt that the nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. "Therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition will have to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected MiscellaneousPetitions are closed.cadsd/Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1The Principal Secretary to GovernmentHome DepartmentSecretariatFort St. GeorgeChennai 600 0092The Registrar GeneralHigh Court of MadrasChennai 600 104 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ +1 CC to M/s. V. Manohar, Advocate Sr.19763+1 CC to Government Pleader Sr.19781W.P. 7418 of 2012KJ (CO)BMD 18/04/2012