Case Law Details
Aniruthan Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India)
The petitioner, who is a member of the Bar, had instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the appointment of the fourth and fifth respondents by seeking a writ of quo warranto. The fourth and fifth respondents were appointed as Vice Presidents of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2 The grievance of the petitioner was that the procedure for selection was contrary to the decision of this Court in Roger Mathew vs South Indian Bank Limited and Others1.
3 The High Court has entered upon the submission which was urged by the petitioner. We are of the considered view that no recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a writ of quo warranto could have been taken. There is no challenge to the eligibility of the fourth and fifth respondents. If there are other remedies available in respect of the alleged breach of the directions in Roger Mathew vs South Indian Bank Limited and Others (supra), it is open to an aggrieved individual to pursue such remedies in accordance with law.
4 There is no dispute about the fact that the fourth and fifth respondents meet the eligibility requirements for holding the office to which they have been appointed. The appointments were made in January 2020.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
