Madras High Court upholds validity of 2019 amendment to Law Officer Appointment Rules [Read Judgment]

The Madras High Court on Wednesday upheld the validity of a 2019 amendment made to the rules governing the appointment of government advocates under the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017 (2017 Rules). [A Kannan v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors]..The said amendment was introduced by a government order on September 4, 2019. In particular, sub-clause (k) of the amended Rule 4 (i) laid down the eligibility for being appointed as government advocates. .This Rule was also the subject matter of challenge in a petition moved by Advocate B Kannan, which has now been dismissed by the Court. .The amended Rule stated laid down that no person would be eligible for appointment as a High Court government advocate unless he furnishes a letter given by his senior stating that he has assisted and worked in the High Court for not less than three years. .The petitioner raised concern over inexperienced advocates using the said Rule to be appointed as law officers, thereby affecting the administration of justice of the Court..The Bench of Justices TS Sivagnanam and S Ananthi, however, did not find merit in these arguments. Rather, the Court emphasised on the credibility attached to a senior lawyer's endorsement of his or her junior to dismiss apprehensions raised regarding the implementation of Rule 4 (i) (k)."If we are to accept the argument of the petitioner, then we would be undermining the statement, which a senior would made for his junior while certifying that he worked and assisted him in the matters before this Court for a period of three years. To the best of the knowledge of this Court, every senior would always cherish and be proud of the achievements of his/her juniors when they occupying various positions. Therefore, the petitioner should give utmost credence and solemnity to the letter given by the senior certifying that his junior instructed him in the matters before this Court for a period of three years. Thus, we find that there is no irrationality or illegality or arbitrariness nor any discrimination in Rule 4(i)(k) for it to be struck down", the Court said..The Court also took note of the State's submission that it is taking steps to make regular appointments to vacant posts of law officers in accordance with the 2017 Rules, which had earlier been upheld by a High Court Division Bench in 2018 in the case of V Vasanthakumar v. Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu and ors..Madras HC calls for guidelines for transparent selection of Law Officers [Read Order].By the said 2018 ruling, the Court had directed for certain guidelines to be framed for the transparent appointment of law officers.."What the State has done is to frame a Rule, which definitely has to be placed in a higher pedestal than the guideline as the Rule has been notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette", the Court observed on Wednesday. .Moreover, in the present case, the Bench opined that no serious challenge has been made to the amended rules for the appointment of other law officers such as Additional Advocate General, Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor, Special Government Pleader, Additional Public Prosecutor or Additional Government Pleader. .The thrust of the challenge was only on the amended eligibility criteria for the appointment of government advocates, the Court noted. .Will not go into aspersions cast on temporary law officer appointments: Court.Notably, the Court recorded that it will not go into any aspersions cast on the temporary law officer appointments made earlier this year since the government orders making these appointments have not been challenged..Following a change in regime after the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections, the new DMK-led government had made several temporary appointments of law officers to assist the Court until regular appointments are made in line with the 2017 Rules. .The Court observed that there is no need to go into aspersions cast on these temporary appointments, since they are not under challenge. "The Government Orders clearly state that on a request made by the learned Advocate General, the Government of Tamil Nadu had appointed counsels for the Government to appear in civil and criminal cases temporarily until the law officers are selected and appointed in terms of the Rules......The learned Advocate General, who appeared before this Court through video conferencing, has also mentioned that those appointments are to enable the Government to represent before this Court and to ensure that the proceedings before this Court are not in any manner affected on account of absence of law officers for the State," the Court added. .Furthermore, given that the selection of regular law officers was underway, the Bench observed that its powers of judicial review in the matter are limited and that the prayers made by the petitioner for consequential directions were premature. .The Court ultimately held:"With regard to the consequential relief sought for by the petitioner, we taken note of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General that the process of appointment of Government counsels is yet to begin and that the temporary appointments have been made to facilitate the smooth conduct of the proceedings before this Court.".Give wide publicity to notifications inviting applications for appointment of law officers: Court.Certain difficulties expressed by Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram concerning the issuance of notifications inviting applications for various categories of law officers on account of the COVID-19 pandemic situation was also recorded..The Court has recommended that the State take steps to give wide publicity to the law officers selection process process by issuing paper publications, sending out messages for the concerned Bar Associations to inform member-lawyers, issuing press releases and uploading the necessary information on the official website. .Since permission is being granted by the High Court Registry for the limited entry of advocates to their chambers at the court premises, the Court also suggested that the State obtain permission from the Registrar General to affix notices on the notice boards of advocates' or Bar associations. ."Before we part, we wish to observe that due care and caution be taken by the respondents in conducting the selection process and appointing counsels to appear for the State Government, so that, effective assistance could be given to the Courts," the Court added on a parting note. .[Read Judgment]