The judgment emphasizes the significance of transparency and accountability in the selection and appointment process, highlighting the application of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. As all the writ petitions relate to selection and appointment to the post of District Judge by direct recruitment and common order of selection and appointment of contesting respondents 3 to 11 are under challenge, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner, N.Rajachandrasekaran of W.P. No.3102/05 has sought for declaration that selection of respondents 3 to 11 as District Judges by direct recruitment in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as illegal and ultra vires Articles 223 and 233 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner, D.Parisuthanathan of W.P. No.7588/06 has challenged the appointment of the aforesaid respondents.

The same very petitioner, D.Parisuthanathan has preferred the other writ petition, W.P. No.1285/09 against the order contained in letter R.O.C. No.575/2007 RTI dated 23rd June, 2008, whereby the 2nd respondent, Deputy Registrar – Right to Information, has shown inability to provide information with regard to appointment of District Judges and informed the petitioner that the Government is the appointing authority, therefore, related particulars and other information can be obtained from the State Government.

2. It appears that a notice dated 10th Aug., 2003, was published in the newspaper, the respondent-State invited application for appointment to the post of District Judge by direct recruitment from amongst members of the Bar having more than 7 years of practice as an Advocate. The petitioner and the contesting respondents and others applied. A written test was conducted on 6th Sept., 2003. The candidates were called for interview held in April, 2004. The intimation relating to selection was forwarded on 3rd Dec., 2004, pursuant to which orders of appointment were issued vide G.O. Ms. No.1786 Public (Special -A) Department dated 24h Dec., 2004. The persons, who were appointed were sent for training, commenced on 6th June, 2005. After more than a year or two, the writ petitions were preferred by petitioners challenging the appointment of the respondents 3 to 11. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that, though they obtained higher marks in the written test as well as interview, but they have not been appointed and persons having lower marks, having lower position in the merit list have been appointed.

3. The petitioner, N.Rajachandrasekaran of W.P. No.3102/05 has stated that out of 75 marks in the written test, he has secured 60 marks and out of 25 marks in the viva-voce, he has obtained 15 marks and, thereby, he has secured 75 marks out of 100, which is the highest among all the candidates. The next highest mark, as he could come to know is 54 marks or below, obtained by others. Almost similar plea has been taken by the petitioner, D.Parisuthanathan of W.P. No.7588/06, who claims to have obtained about 60 to 75 marks.

4. The contesting respondents have denied the averments and stated that the claim made by the petitioners was not based on evidence and the marks they claim is based on surmises and conjectures. The 2nd respondent, Deputy Registrar – RTI, has taken plea that he is ready to produce the records before the Court and, in fact, produced the original proceeding relating to selection and appointment.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record.

6. In the case of Hari Datt – Vs – State of H.P. (AIR 1980 SC 1426), while the question of appointment of District Judges fell for consideration, the Supreme Court observed that where the Government acts on the recommendation of the High court and the action of the Government is challenged by way of writ petition, in order to facilitate proposition of issues raised, administrative side of the High Court, if joined as a party, must appear and place before the Court the entire records for a fair and judicious adjudication of the issues on the judicial side of the High Court. That was a case in which the appellants in their writ petitio