K.N. Basha, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, has come forward with this petition challenging the proceedings in G.O.(4D) No.71, Home (Courts-I) Department dated 10.09.2012 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same insofar as the appointment of the third respondent is concerned and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the name of the petitioner with Registration No.17655 for the selection and appointment to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service for the year 2009-2012 within a time frame.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she had enrolled as a Member of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as per enrollment No.413/99 and she is practicing in the Courts in and around Nagercoil. The first respondent invited applications for the appointment of 185 posts of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service to be made by direct recruitment. The petitioner submitted her application and accordingly, she has written the examination on 24.3.2012 and 25.3.2012 at St.Xavier's College, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

3. The petitioner was placed under the category of Women and as per the reservation system, she, being a Christian, comes under the category of Backward Class. She has secured 166 marks in the written examination. Subsequently she was called for viva voce test by the second respondent to appear on 06.6.2012 at 9.00 a.m at the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, Chennai. She had attended the interview and she has secured 18 marks in the interview and as a result, her total marks is 184. She comes from Backward Class Community for Women and the total post available to that category should be 33 in number. The first respondent issued G.O.(4D) No.71, Home (Courts-I) Department dated 10.9.2012, publishing the list of selected candidates to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service and the name of the petitioner does not find place in the said list. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition with the above said prayer.

4. Mr.S.Subbiah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the impugned Government Order dated 10.9.2012 on the file of the first respondent insofar as the appointment of the third respondent, has put forward the following contentions:

(i) The selection list which is not in conformity with the reservation for the category of Women in the Backward Class, is nothing but arbitrary.

(ii) The total number of posts available to the category of Women in the Backward Class should be 33 and such being the position, the petitioner is bound to get herself appointed to the post of Civil Judge as she is fully qualified, eligible and entitled for such appointment

(iii) The third respondent has secured 183 marks as per the mark list published by the second respondent and whereas the petitioner has secured 184 marks and as such, she is entitled to be selected and not the third respondent, who had secured only 183 marks.

(iv) The contention of the second respondent that the third respondent, who has secured 183 marks as against the petitioner who has secured 184 marks in aggregate, was selected on the basis of preferential treatment to those studied in Tamil medium, is unacceptable as there was no Tamil medium in B.L. Degree course in the Madurai Law College and the third respondent also admitted in her counter affidavit that she is not possessing any certificate to show that she had underwent B.L. Degree course in Tamil language.

(v) The information furnished by the Public Information Officer and Director of Legal Studies dated 25.03.2013 while answering the questions stated that in 5 years B.L. Degree course only English medium is available and as such, the contention of the third respondent that she studied B.L. Degree course in Tamil medium is unbelievable.

(vi) Giving preference to Tamil medium candidates in appointment