The Madras High Court has stayed the appointment of Dr Gowri Ramesh as Tamil Nadu's Director of Legal Studies after finding that the State government had prima facie violated an assurance given by the Advocate General before a Division Bench of the Court. [Rajeswaran v. State of TN]
Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar granted the interim stay for six weeks while hearing a petition challenging the government's September 8 order temporarily promoting Ramesh to the post. The Court said,
"State to act on whims and fancies in total disregard of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. If the same allowed, the same would result in eroding the confidence of public in the judicial system itself...The assurance or statements made by learned Advocate General before this Court are binding on the State."
The dispute arose from a petition filed by Dr Rajeswaran, Principal of Government Law College, Vellore challenging Ramesh's appointment and seeking consideration for promotion based on his seniority and suitability.
This was the second round of litigation concerning the post.
Earlier, Ramesh, who was serving as Registrar of Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, had been placed in full additional charge of the Director's post.
On June 30, a single judge restrained her from continuing in that capacity. However, a Division Bench set aside the interim order on July 23 after the Advocate General assured the Court that a full-time Director would be appointed within two months in accordance with Rule 2(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service.
Subsequently, the government issued an order on September 8 temporarily promoting Ramesh under Section 47(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The provision empowers the government to make temporary promotions in emergencies arising in the public interest when following the regular procedure would cause undue delay.
Advocate General Vijay Narayan maintained that the appointment was consistent with the Special Rules, arguing that promotions were initially temporary and subsequently regularised. He also submitted that Ramesh had already assumed charge approximately three weeks earlier and that interfering with her appointment at the interim stage would effectively amount to granting final relief.
However, the Court found that the appointment order expressly invoked the government's emergency powers rather than the procedure contemplated under the Special Rules.
It held that the government was bound by the assurance on which the Division Bench had relied while allowing the earlier appeal.
"This Court cannot remain oblivious to the assurance given by the learned Advocate General before this Court and order passed in W.A.No.2144 of 2026 and allow the respondent State to act on whims and fancies in total disregard of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court."
The Court warned that allowing such conduct would erode public confidence in the judicial system.
Justice Kumar said that although courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with appointments after an appointee assumes charge, the peculiar circumstances warranted an exception. The Court added that failure to intervene in such circumstances would lead to a failure of justice.
Accordingly, it granted an interim stay for six weeks and listed the matter for November 2, 2026, for the filing of a counter-affidavit.
Advocate M Ravi represented the petitioner.
AG Narayan was assisted by Additional Government Pleader S Ranjith Kumar.
[Read Judgment]