PIL questioning law secy continuing in post dismissed

The Madras High Court today dismissed a PIL questioning the authority of the state Law Secretary continuing in his post and imposed costs of Rs 5,000 on the petitioner.
Dismissing the PIL by one P Subburaj, the first bench, comprising Justices Satish K Agnihotri and M M Sundresh, said various pronouncements by the apex court and exposition of law made it clear that issuing a writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued when the person holding the public office lacks eligibility criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
It said the basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority.

Subburaj, who appeared in person, alleged that Law Secretary Jayachandran's statement in the application seeking appointment to the post of District Judge in 2005, that he has 15 years practice an advocate, was factually incorrect.
He contended Jayachandran could not have practiced law while pursuing higher studies and prayed for issue of a writ of quo warranto (under what authority he holds office)
The bench, after persuing the records, noted Jayachandran has done his law degree in 1988, obtaining third rank in the University. He was also a gold medallist in the M.L. Degree course in 1990 and did his M.A. From Madras University in 1993 passing in second class. He then did his doctorate in Law in 2001.

It noted that Jeyachandran, in his application filed for the post, had stated he has enrolled as an advocate on October 28, 1988 and had 15 years service in the bar and duly enclosed appropriate certificates.
The bench while discussing about the issue of quo warranto on a petition, said "it cannot be issued for the sake of mere asking. The test to be satisfied is that there should be either lack of eligibility or the appointment should have been made contrary to the statutory rules. Thus, a writ of quo warranto cannot be entertained as a matter of routine."

It dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 5,000 to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.