Uncategorized

The appointment is therefore arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the law laid down in Uma Devi, and liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. Dated at Chennai on this the day of May, 2026

by Sekar Reporter · May 13, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2026

R. Rathi,
D/o. E.Rose,
No.247, Perumal Koil Street,
Keezhanur Village,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District. … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.

2. Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Department(Estt.IV),
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600009.

3. Mr. Rickey Radhan Pandit Vettrivel,
Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political),
Chennai- 600 009. … Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF R. RATHI

I, R. Rathi, daughter of E. Rose, aged about 26 years, residing at No.247, Perumal Koil Street, Keezhanur Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District, now temporarily come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows.

1. I am the petitioner herein and I know the facts of the case.

2. I am filing the writ petition seeking writ of quo warranto questioning the authority of the 3rd respondent to hold the office of Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political) pursuant to the proceedings No.675 dated
2
12.05.2026. I am a practising Lawyer in the Madras High Court having enrolled before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on 19.09.2022 (Enrollment No.4105 of 2022).

3. I submit that the Honourable Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Uma Devi had held that any appointment to the government service or any public appointment shall be made in accordance with the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. There cannot be any appointment outside the constitutional scheme. Such appointments are backdoor appointments and are held to be illegal. On 12.05.2026, the government of Tamil Nadu, Public Department, Secretariat, the Principal Secretary to Government issued a proceedings No.675 dated 12.5.2026, whereby Mr. Rickey Radhan Pandit Vettrivel was appointed as Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political) with effect from the date of joining. The terms and conditions in this regard will be issued separately. The order of appointment was made by the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and a copy has been sent to the 3rd respondent, with a copy to the Chief Minister’s Office, Chennai – 600 009, Public (Bills-C) Department, Chennai – 600 009, Pay and Accounts Office, Chennai 9, Accountants General, Chennai 18.

4. This clearly shows that the appointment is to the public office and the appointment has been made without callying for any application from the open market, without framing any service rules, without issuing any notification, without conducting any recruitment in the manner known to law. Such appointment is illegal, backdoor, unconstitutional, without authority of law. The person who has been appointed as a officer on special duty is a renowned astrologer who had predicted that Mr. Joseph Vijai will win in the assembly elections and he will become the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
3

5. The predictions made by the 3rd respondent before the Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections are Vijay would emerge as a major political force in Tamil Nadu. TVK would secure a sweeping electoral victory. Vijay would become Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Traditional Dravidian party dominance would weaken. Vijay’s horoscope allegedly indicated a “tsunami”-like political rise.
TVK’s name and numerology were said to be astrologically favourable.

6. The appointment has been made as a reward for his astrological contribution, which is highly illegal, without the authority of law, unconstitutional. Therefore, it is without jurisdiction and writ of Quo Warranto will lie in such cases. We can question under what authority that individual is holding the office of the officer on special duty to the Chief Minister (Political) dated 12/5/2026. Since the authorities have marked the copy to the paid accounts office and accountant general, Chennai 18, it shows that it is a public appointment and the salary is paid out of public fund, which requires creation of post, sanction of post, and also budgetary allocation for such appointment. It is not understood when the post was sanctioned and when the budgetary allocation was made and who had sanctioned. Nothing is available. Immediately on assuming the office of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the present ruling government has issued the order of appointment on 12.05.2026 appointing the 3rd respondent as an officer on special duty to Chief Minister (Political). Such appointment is unconstitutional, illegal, without jurisdiction, and liable for quashing and setting aside the order for the following among other Grounds.
GROUNDS

a. The impugned appointment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as no equal opportunity was afforded to eligible candidates.
4

b. The Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi held that public employment must conform to constitutional requirements and cannot be made through backdoor methods. The impugned appointment has been made dehors any transparent recruitment procedure and therefore illegal.

c. No statutory rules, executive instructions, or constitutional provisions authorising such appointment have been disclosed and as such it is illegal.

d. The office appears to be funded from the Consolidated Fund/public exchequer. Any such post requires lawful creation, sanction, and budgetary allocation. In the absence of disclosed sanction orders, the continuation of the 3rd Respondent in the office is illegal and liable to be cancelled.

e. A writ of quo warranto is maintainable where a person occupies a public office without legal authority. The post in question is a public office since, it is created and filled by the Government, remuneration is allegedly paid from public funds, official communications have been issued through the Secretariat.

f. The post requires sanction order for creation of the post concurrence from finance department budgetary allocation, post clarification scale of pay, appointing authority, service rules, qualification and eligibility criteria, method of recruitment. It was not stated that the appointment was co-terminus. It is submitted that in the order of appointment terms and condition have not been mentioned intentionally to avoid legal complication and possible challenge before the Court of Law.\

g. The post is paid out of Public state funds and involved exercise of Governmental function requires existence of sanctioned Public post and the procedure of appointment.
5

h. I submit that the order dated 12.05.2026 was issued on the basis of the request made on the basis of the Office note from the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister dated 12.05.2026. Therefore the order was made simply on the request of the Hon’ble Chief Minister on Political considerations and for doing a personal favour to the Astrologer of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and as such it is vitiated due to legal malafides and liable to be set aside.

7. I state that I have no other alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of Constitution.

8. I state that I have not approached this Hon’ble Court earlier for the same relief.

9. I state that I am not in possession of the original of the Office proceedings No.675 dated 12.05.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent. However a copy of the same has been filed in the typed set of paper.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of the Original of the order in office Proceedings No. 675 dated 12.05.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent for the present and thus render justice.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from continuing in office as Officer on Special duty to Chief Minister (Political) during the pendency of the writ petition and thus render justice.

For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions in Particular issue a WRIT OF Quo Warranto calling upon the 3rd Respondent to show cause under what authority he holds the office of “Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political)” pursuant to proceedings No.675 dated 12.05.2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent and declare the appointment of the 3rd Respondent as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and void consequently quash the Office Proceedings No.675 dated 12.05.2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on ] BEFORE ME,
This the day of May, 2026 and ]
Signed his name in my presence. ] ADVOCATE, CHENNAI

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
[Under Article 226 of Constitution of India]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2026

R. Rathi,
D/o. E.Rose,
No.247, Perumal Koil Street,
Keezhanur Village,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District. … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.

2. Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Department(Estt.IV),
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600009.

3. Mr. Rickey Radhan Pandit Vettrivel,
Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political),
Chennai- 600 009. … Respondents

WRIT PETITION
The address for service of all notices and processes on the petitioner is that of his Counsels M/s. M.GNANASEKAR, K.SATHIYAVEL, T.PARTHIBAN, M.N.KATHIR and B.ASHA, Advocates, having Office at No. 156, Thambu Street, Andhra Insurance Buildings, Room No.9, II Floor, Chennai – 600 001.
The address for service of all notices and processes on the respondents is the same as stated above.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions in Particular issue a WRIT OF Quo Warranto calling upon the 3rd Respondent to show cause under what authority he holds the office of “Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political)” pursuant to proceedings No.675 dated 12.05.2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent and declare the appointment of the 3rd Respondent as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and void consequently quash the Office Proceedings No.675 dated 12.05.2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai on this the day of May, 2026

Counsel for Petitioner

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
[Under Article 226 of Constitution of India]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.M.P.No. of 2026
in
W.P. No. of 2026
R. Rathi,
D/o. E.Rose,
No.247, Perumal Koil Street,
Keezhanur Village,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District. … Petitioner/Petitioner

Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.

2. Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Department(Estt.IV),
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600009.

3. Mr. Rickey Radhan Pandit Vettrivel,
Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political),
Chennai- 600 009. … Respondents/Respondents

PETITION FOR DISPENSE WITH

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from continuing in office as Officer on Special duty to Chief Minister (Political) during the pendency of the writ petition and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai on this the day of May, 2026
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
[Under Article 226 of Constitution of India]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.M.P.No. of 2026
in
W.P. No. of 2026
R. Rathi,
D/o. E.Rose,
No.247, Perumal Koil Street,
Keezhanur Village,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District. … Petitioner/Petitioner

Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.

2. Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Department(Estt.IV),
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600009.

3. Mr. Rickey Radhan Pandit Vettrivel,
Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political),
Chennai- 600 009. … Respondents/Respondents

PETITION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION

W.P. No. of 2026

BATTA PAID Rs.90/-

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.

2. Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Department(Estt.IV),
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600009.

3. Mr. Rickey Radhan Pandit Vettrivel,
Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political),
Chennai- 600 009. … Respondents

Dated at Chennai on this the day of May, 2026

Counsel for Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2026
R. Rathi, … Petitioner
Versus

The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.
And 2 others. … Respondents

INDEX TO THE TYPED SET PAPERS
S.No. Date Nature of documents Page No.
1 Dates and events
2 Synopsis
3 Coding sheet
4 Court fee stamp papers
5 Writ Petition
6. WMP- Dispense with Petition
7. WMP- Interim Injunction
8. Common Affidavit
9. 12.05.2026 Order of the 2nd respondent appointing the 3rd respondent as Office Special Duty (Impugned Order).
TYPED SET OF PAPERS
9. Petitioner’s Bar Council Identity card.
10. 12.05.2026 Order of the 2nd respondent appointing the 3rd respondent as Office Special Duty (Impugned Order).
It is certified that the above documents filed herewith are true copies of their originals.

Dated at Chennai on this the day of May, 2026
Counsel for Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2026

R. Rathi, … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.
And 2 others. … Respondents

DATES AND EVENTS

S.No. Date Nature of documents Page No.
1 Petitioner’s Bar Council Identity card.
2 12.05.2026 Order of the 2nd respondent appointing the 3rd respondent as Office Special Duty (Impugned Order).

Dated at Chennai on this the day of May, 2026

Counsel for Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2026

R. Rathi, … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.
And 2 others. … Respondents

SYNOPSIS
The present writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority under which Respondent No. __ is holding the post of “Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister (Political)” pursuant to office proceedings No.675 dated 12.05.2026 issued by the Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. The impugned appointment has allegedly been made dehors the constitutional scheme governing public employment. No statutory rules under Article 309 of the Constitution govern the appointment. No recruitment notification, advertisement, selection process, or eligibility criteria were published. No material is available in the public domain regarding creation or sanction of the post, budgetary approval, or source of power enabling such appointment. The appointment is therefore arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the law laid down in Uma Devi, and liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Dated at Chennai on this the day of May, 2026

Counsel for Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2026

R. Rathi, … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.
And 2 others. … Respondents

WRIT PETITION

M/s. M. GNANASEKAR [574/1989]
K. SATHIYAVEL [512/2003]
T. PARTHIBAN [3694/2014]
M.N. KATHIR [764/2016]
B. ASHA [722/2022]

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
98400 52504