Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of 23 District Judges In 2013

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the appointment of 23 candidates to the post of District Judges (Entry Level) in 2013. The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that some of the petitioners had challenged the selection process for deciding the ranking of candidates based on the marks obtained by them in the viva voce, and thus argued that the Selection Commission was vested with excessive powers. Rejecting these arguments, the bench observed that once a Selection Committee is formed to assess the performance of the candidates, their discretion cannot be interfered with unless serious and valid concerns are raised. In the present case, the court noted that there was no justification to the grievances raised by the petitioners, which were vague and general. The court also added that after participating in the selection process, the candidates could not challenge the same without concrete reasons. “Once a Selection Committee has been formed to undertake the process of assessment and selection of candidates, their discretion is normally not liable to be interfered with unless serious and very valid concerns are raised. We do not, in the present matter, find any such justification as the grievances raised are vague and general in nature,” the court said. The court noted that in another set of pleas, the eligibility of four persons was challenged, alleging that they lacked judicial experience, and concealed criminal and civil antecedents. The petitioners had argued that the candidates did not have continuous practice, had filed very few Vakalath and were not regular in attendance of courts. The court noted that both the candidates against whom allegations were raised of lack of judicial experience, had produced certificate from the Presiding Officer of the court which they were regularly attending, as required under the notification, to establish the condition. Though the court opined that a mere certificate would not suffice to prove the experience of the candidate, the court noted that the 2013 notification only required production of the certificate and no supporting materials. “Ideally, there should be some amplification of this requirement, in that, a mere certificate would not suffice to reveal the experience of the candidate. The Certificate must be accompanied by other, supporting materials, illustrating and attesting to the quality of the practice engaged in, and the experience gained…In any event, as we are, in this case, concerned with the 2013 Notification only, we are required solely to ensure that the candidates had complied with the conditions thereunder. The requirement under that Notification to establish the criterion of 'experience' is a certificate from the Presiding Officer of the Court where they had normally practiced,” the court said. Thus, noting that the candidates had fulfilled the criteria as per the notification, the court found no reason to interfere. With respect to the second line of allegation that the candidates had concealed their criminal and civil antecedents, the candidates informed the court that they had not received any summons from the court and thus, were not aware of the pending cases. After perusing the materials in connection with the cases against the candidates, the court found force in their submission and noted that there was no way for the candidates to know about the pendency of the cases. With respect to another candidate, the court noted that the candidate was already acquitted by the trial court, and had thus omitted to disclose the same. The court remarked that though there was an omission, that one error would not compromise the entire 12-year service of the candidate since 2014. Thus, the court was not inclined to entertain the challenge. The court thus dismissed all the pleas. Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.R.Subramanian for Mr.K.S.Gnanasambandan, Mr.N.Subramaniyan assisted by Mr.L.Sathiyaraj& Mr.J.K.Prabhakaran Counsel for Respondent: Mr.P.K.Rajagopal, Mr.G.Raam Vijay, Mr.R.Bhagath Singh, Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar for M/s Nortan& Grant, Mr.Om Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr.Suresh, Mr.R.Venkatavarathan, Mr.P.Anandakumar Government Advocate, Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Antony Jesus, Mrs.Vedavalli Kumar, Mrs.V.Srimathi, Mr.P.M.Subramanian Senior Counsel for Mr.G.K.Kumaresan, Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, Mr.R.Ravindran, Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Raja, Mr.B.Srinivasan, Ms.P.T.Ramadevi Case Title: N Bharathirajan v The High Court of Madras Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 202 Case No: W.P.No.23734 of 2013Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of 23 District Judges In 2013

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of 23 District Judges In 2013

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers