"Not Below The Rank Of Deputy Secretary" In Section 9(1) Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act Sets A Baseline, Not A Ceiling: Madras High Court

"The statutory phrasing 'not below the rank of' sets a floor, not a ceiling. It prescribes a minimum baseline of official seniority and status. It does not create an absolute bar against appointing judicial officers who satisfy or exceed that requisite rank." Madras High Court, in a ruling, has upheld the validity of G.O.Ms.No.84 of 2020, affirming that the state government is empowered to appoint District Judges as Secretary to the Lokayukta.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed that the statutory requirement under Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018, regarding the rank of the Secretary, functions as a minimum eligibility threshold rather than a restrictive exclusionary clause for judicial officers.

The petitioner, a practising advocate, challenged G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 21.07.2020, which amended the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Rules, 2018. The amendment expanded the recruitment pool for the post of Secretary and Registrar to include serving or retired District Judges, in addition to senior Secretariat officers. The petitioner contended that Section 9(1) of the parent Act, which mandates the Secretary be "not below the rank of Deputy Secretary," implicitly restricts the appointment to executive officers, rendering the government order ultra vires.

The Court was tasked with determining whether G.O.Ms.No.84 exceeded the delegated rule-making power of the State Government under Section 44 of the Act. Specifically, the Court examined whether the inclusion of District Judges for the post of Secretary violated the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018. The Court also addressed the preliminary maintainability of the petition given the significant delay in challenging the notification.

The bench first addressed the preliminary objection regarding delay and laches. The Court noted that the impugned Government Order was gazetted in July 2020, and the petitioner approached the Court only after an unexplained lapse of six years. The judges reiterated that even in Public Interest Litigation, an unexplained and prolonged delay in challenging delegated legislation or statutory appointments disentitles a petitioner from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Interpreting Statutory Language

Moving to the merits, the Court analyzed the scope of Section 9(1) of the Act. The bench clarified that the phrase "not below the rank of Deputy Secretary" establishes a floor for the required seniority of the official. It does not act as a closed-list or an exhaustive category that precludes the inclusion of officials from the judicial service who hold equivalent or higher status.

Court Explains Statutory Competence

The Court emphasized that District Judges possess a cadre and status that indisputably meet or exceed the rank of a Deputy Secretary to the Government. Given the quasi-judicial mandate of the Lokayukta—which involves conducting litigation, managing judicial registries, and interacting with investigative agencies—the expertise of a judicial officer is functionally congruent with the requirements of the post.

Valid Exercise of Rule-Making Power

Furthermore, the Court pointed to Section 44(2)(d) of the Act, which explicitly authorizes the Government to frame rules regarding the conditions of service and appointment modes for the Lokayukta. The bench held that the inclusion of judicial officers as a recruitment source is entirely consistent with the statutory scheme of the parent Act and falls well within the executive’s delegated legislative power.

"The impugned G.O.Ms.No.84 of 2020 is valid and within the statutory competence of the State Government. The petitioner has failed to establish any violation of statutory provisions or constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India."

The High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, finding no legal infirmity in the impugned government order. The ruling clarifies that administrative convenience and the specific needs of an anti-corruption body can be addressed through delegated legislation, provided the core statutory "rank-floor" is maintained.

Date of Decision: 02 September 2026