Advocates should not turn into busybodies and have themselves used as litigants in all kinds of issues at the behest of someone else who may have direct interest in those issues but do not want to come out in the open, the Madras High Court Bench here has said.
Justice K. Chandru made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by lawyer R. Ramasamy to direct Higher Education Secretary and Madurai Kamaraj University to cancel the academic staff status given to technical employees of the Educational Multi Media Research Centre (EMMRC) of the university.
Claiming to have been invited by the university on a few occasions to deliver guest lectures, the petitioner said that he came to know that the posts of Producer, Assistant Engineer and Production Assistant in EMMRC were treated as academic posts through a resolution passed by the Syndicate on March 23, 2009.
He sent a few representations to the university to cancel the resolution as only the posts of Director and Assistant Librarian could be treated as academic posts. He identified himself as a lawyer in those representations. When they were not considered, he filed the present writ petition.
“Not advocate's job”
“It is not clear as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution as he will not be benefited by the cancellation of such resolution. It is also not the job of an advocate to have him used as a public interest litigant and to issue notices on all kinds of issues even if he does not have a remote interest.
“Certainly, as admitted by the petitioner, the writ petition has not been filed in public interest. In which case, the next question which automatically falls for consideration is whether the matter can be filed in his private capacity if he is not personally injured in any way by the said resolution.
“No person can be allowed to become busybody or officious intervener in a matter in which he has no direct or substantial interest. Even if the decision which is complained of is held to be invalid, in the absence of the petitioner setting out his real interest, the writ petition cannot be maintainable.
“If the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in his capacity of an advocate, it certainly did not concern with his legal profession or legal practice. If he is utilising his professional standing, he cannot seek direction to all kinds of authorities asking them to do a particular thing in a particular fashion.
“A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition clearly shows that the petitioner has filed the writ petition on behalf of other persons who may have direct interest in the affairs of the university but do not want to show their face.