Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
V. Yamuna Devi & Another
Versus
The Registrar General High Court, Madras & Others
WRIT PETITION NOs.25778 & 26588 OF 2010 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided on: 01-12-2010
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by two practicing lawyers challenging the shortlisting of candidates for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and the notification issued by the Government calling for applications for the same. The Court held that the notification issued by the Government, which contemplated a selection process consisting of a written examination followed by a viva-voce examination, did not intend that all persons who appeared for the written examination were eligible to be called for the viva-voce. The Court further held that the Rules governing the appointment of District Judges (Entry Level) did not contemplate conferring marks for the length of practice of candidates and that the mere use of the words “length of practice at the Bar” in the notification did not enable the petitioners to claim the same as a matter of right. The Court also held that the petitioner was only entitled to be considered for selection and did not have a vested right of selection in accordance with the rules. The Court further held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath and others, which dealt with the shortlisting of candidates for the main examination based on the performance in the preliminary examination, was not applicable to the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, two practicing lawyers, challenged the shortlisting of candidates for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and the notification issued by the Government calling for applications for the same. The petitioners contended that the notification did not provide weightage for the length of practice at the Bar, that the shortlisting was done contrary to the terms of the notification, and that the zone of consideration for women candidates was not arrived at on the basis of proper proportion. The petitioners also challenged the validity of the selection process and the reservation of appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the notification issued by the Government did not intend that all persons who appeared for the written examination were eligible to be called for the viva-voce. The Court further held that the Rules governing the appointment of District Judges (Entry Level) did not contemplate conferring marks for the length of practice of candidates and that the mere use of the words “length of practice at the Bar” in the notification did not enable the petitioners to claim the same as a matter of right. The Court also held that the petitioner was only entitled to be considered for selection and did not have a vested right of selection in accordance with the rules. The Court further held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath and others, which dealt with the shortlisting of candidates for the main examination based on the performance in the preliminary examination, was not applicable to the present case.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification issued by the Government intended that all persons who appeared for the written examination were eligible to be called for the viva-voce? 2. Whether the Rules governing the appointment of District Judges (Entry Level) contemplated conferring marks for the length of practice of candidates? 3. Whether the petitioner had a vested right of selection in accordance with the rules? 4. Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath and others was applicable to the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The notification issued by the Government did not intend that all persons who appeared for the written examination were eligible to be called for the viva-voce. 2. The Rules governing the appointment of District Judges (Entry Level) did not contemplate conferring marks for the length of practice of candidates. 3. The petitioner did not have a vested right of selection in accordance with the rules. 4. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath and others was not applicable to the present case.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners.
P. JYOTHIMANI, J.
1. The petitioners, practicing lawyers belonging to Adi-Dravida Community (which is a scheduled caste) and Backward Class community respectively, have applied for the post of District Judge (Entry Level), pursuant to the notification issued by the Government. Having taken part in the written examination conducted by the High Court of Madras and having failed to get their names short-listed for the viva-voce, they have filed the present writ petitions challenging the shortlist of candidates published by the respondents 1 and 2 for viva-voce for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and also for direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to prepare a valid short-list of candidates by giving weightage for the years of practice at the Bar and a proper zone for women candidates on par with men candidates and challenging the notification with direction to revalue the answer sheets by an independent expert Committee respectively.
2. As it is seen in the notification issued by the Government dated 24.6.2010 and subsequent corrigendum dated 27.10.2010, applications were called for filling up of the posts of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service to be filled up through direct recruitment. The recruitment process is governed by the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 (in short, "the Rules").
The applications were called for from advocates or pleaders in India having not less than 7 years of practice and practicing on the date of notification. The vacancy position as per the said notification was as follows:
General Turn -4(1 woman) Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars on preferential Basis) -1 (1 woman) Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities - 4 (1 woman) Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Muslims) - 4 (1 woman) Scheduled Castes - 3 (1 woman) Backward Class Muslims -1 a) Out of the total 17 vacancies, five have been allotted for woman candidates in each of the categories of reservation. As per the notification, the selection is made based on the results of the written examination and viva-voce stating that the total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and viva-voce would be taken together, subject to the rule of reservation. The maximum marks allotted for written examination is 75 marks while for viva-voce it is 25 marks as per the notification. b) The written examination, as per clause 7 of the notification, is stated to be for three hour duration involving three papers, viz., Law Paper Part-I (Civil), Law Paper Part-II (Criminal) and Law Paper Part-III (General) each carrying 25 marks to a total of 75 marks. In the said notification it is also stated that the written examination would precede the viva-voce examination and as to the short-listing of candidates, the length of practice at the Bar and the marks obtained by them in the written examination would be considered and such short-listed candidates alone would be called for viva-voce examination. c) It is, based on the said explicit contents in the notification, the petitioners applied for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. Under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, which have been framed by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the High Court and the Government of Tamil Nadu under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, three avenues are provided viz., (i) 50% by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division)/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrates, on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and suitability; (ii) 25% by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division), etc., on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination and viva-voce test as prescribed and conducted by the High Court; and (iii) 25% by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
