Moty Judicial Order 2015 (Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, 3) This Suo Motu Writ Appeal has been placed before this Division Bench against the Suo Motu order passed by the leamed single Judge, Hon'ble MrJustice C.S,Karnan of this Court. 2. The Issue relates to the Interview being conducted by the Judges for the selection of Civil Judge (Junior Division), after the'r selection in the written test by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennal, 3, Learned Judge has suo motu passed the impugned order, dated 16.04.2015, wherein he has raised certain allegations and according to the learned Judge, some Judges nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this "Court, to conduct the Interview are not competent and there Is no representation for minority, two Judges ere of the same community and therefore, suo metu, the Judge passed the impugned Judicial order, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, for the stoppage of the interview pertaining to the Gvil Judge2 Cunlor Division) til the settiement of all the issues, as stated by the leamed single Judge in the order. 4. Having gone through the order, we are of the view that it Is not Necessary to go into the personal allegations raised against the Judges, who are Geputed for conducting the interview and we have to consider only the Jurisdiction and propriety vested with the learned single Judge to suo motu pass the impugned order. 5. MrR.Muthukumaresamy, learned Senior counsel, MrPArvindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate-General and Mrs.Niraimathi, learned Standing Counsel for TNPSC submitted that the learned Judge has no authority, power or Jurisdiction to pass suo motu the order, so as to stay the Interview being Conducted by the TNPSC on the reasons stated by him, since there Is no Jurisdiction vested with him and the learned single Judge cannot stay the Administrative order of the Hon'ble Chlef Justice of this Court, as the same Is contrary to law. 6. In this regard, the decision of the Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1344 is relied on, wherein the Hon'ble ‘Supreme Court has held that; (08? Ae ‘the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice oft High Court alone and that it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court, both judicial and administrative. He alone has 'the right and Power to decide how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted; which Judge is to sit alone and which cases he can and Is required to hear as also as to which Judges shall Constitute @ Division Bench and what work those Benches shall do. In other words the Judges of the High Court can sit alone or in Division Benches and do such work only as may be allotted to them by an order of or in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Chief, Justice, 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the administrative control of the High Court is vested only with the Chief Justice and it is the Prerogative of the Chief Justice to distribute business of the High Court both Judicial and administrative. Therefore, we are of the considered view that motu power could be exercised only by the Chief Justice in a Public Interest Litigation. No other Judge other than the Chief Justice can exercise such a power, without the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in a Public Interest Litigation. 8. In State of U.P v. Neeraj Chaubey, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 9 that the High Court having taken note of various judgments of the Supreme Court in the decision in4 ‘State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik (1982) 2 SCC 440; Inder Mani V. Matheshwari Prasad (1996) 6 SCC 587; State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1; R.Rathinam v, State, (2000) 2 SCC 391; Jasbir Singh v, State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294 and various judgments of the High Courts, came to the conclusion that the Chief Justice is the master of roster. It is further held that the Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions. contained In sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, but inheres in him in the very nature of things. The Chief Justice enjoys a Special status and he alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or Full Bench and he has jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by which Bench. 9. The First Bench of this Court in the decision in a Suo Motu W.P.No.8022 Of 2011, dated 28.03.2011, The Chief Election Commissioner and others has held as follows : “Before going into the merits of the case, we would like to express our view with regard to the power of the Hon'ble Judges in initiating writ proceeding suo motu. There is no dispute that initiation of writ Proceeding, suo motu, in public interest, Is within ‘the competence of every Hon'ble Judge of this ‘Court, which is the integral part of the Constitutional =5 scheme. But, such power Is required to be exercised and regulated in accordance with the rules made by the High Court and the norms set keeping in view the administrative instructions issued and roster of sitting prepared by the Chief Justice. While erercising suo motu power of exercising public Interest Iltigation, selfsrestraint and judicious exercise is expected to be borne in mind. It would be appreciated that as and when any matter of Public Importance is sought to be brought to the Notice of the Court, a reference may be made to the Chief Justice for initiation of action. After such reference Is made by any Hon'ble Judge to the Chiet Justice for initiation of action, the Chief Justice will @amine the matter according to the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court and after the ‘matter is examined, the same can be placed before the appropriate Bench in accordance with the directive issued in that regard by the Chief Justice for further necessary action.” 10, In the instant case, we are of the view that we need not go into the Getalls ofthe allegations made in the order against some other Hon'ble Judges. The short point is that the Hon'ble Chief Justice has nominated Judges for oe| =| Interview for the selection of Civ Judge (Junior Division), which is going on at present. At this juncture, the learned single Judge has suo motu stayed the6 Interview being conducted by the Judges, by way of Passing the impugned order. Tt is wall settied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as discussed above by us in this Order that no Judge other than the Hon'ble Chief Justice can suo motu pass an order to stay the operation of the administrative order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, 11, Hence, {tls crystal clear that when there Is suo motu action taken ina Public Interest Litigation, (1) the Power shall be exercised by the Chief Justice or (2) upon the direction given by the Chief Justice, IF It is brought to the notice by any other Judge, in case of Public Interest Litigation. Similarly, when there Is a weit petition pertaining to Judicial service, it Is placed only before a Division Bench of this Court by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, as per the legal precedent being followed, 12. In any angle, we are of the view that learned single Judge cannot suo motu exercise the suo motu power in a Public Interest Litigation and pass any order, contrary to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court In various decisions referred to above in this order and we are convinced that It's 2 fit case for ranting interim stay. Accordingly, interim stay Is granted,7 The Registrar General is directed to communicate the order to (1) The Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennal-9; (2) The Chairman, TNPSC, Frazer Bridge Road, V.0.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennal-3; (3) The State Law Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9 by Fax and by Special Messenger Immediately. The Press and Electronic Media are hereby restrained from causing any publication of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in any manner, that has been stayed by us in this order. ‘The Registry |s directed to communicate this order to press and media in such a manner that the press and media is restrained to publish the order of the learned Single Judge. Ist, 4 [CTS, 3] “v 7.04.2015 Index 2 Yes / No” Internet: Yes / Na tsvn “