ORDER :

1. These matters pertain to the order of seniority at the entry level in the district judiciary.

2. In the pyramidal hierarchy that exists in the Indian judiciary, there is the district judiciary - uncharitably, at times, referred to as the subordinate judiciary - which is made up of three tiers, then there are the High Courts which exercise superintendence over the district judiciary and finally there is the Supreme Court which exercises the authority to declare the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution.

3. At the very bottom of pyramid, is the entry-level post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The recruitment to such post is conducted by the Public Service Commission in this State, as in almost all other States. There is a further stage of direct entry into the district judiciary which has come about pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported at (2002) 4 SCC 247 (All India Judges' Association vs. Union of India). A competitive examination is now held for members of the Bar to be directly recruited at the level of the District Judge. Thus, there are two avenues to enter the district judiciary: one at the bottom of the heap as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the other at the top of the three-tier district judiciary at the District Judge level. Based on seniority and merit, personnel from the District Judge category are elevated to the High Court and the present system of recruiting lawyers as District Judges directly makes it possible for young entrants by direct recruitment at the District Judge level to reach the High Court within ten to twelve years, subject to seniority and performance, and such judges stand a chance to have a much longer tenure in the High Court than previously possible for members of the district judiciary elevated to the High Court.

4. In respect of the recruitment at the lowest entry-level of Civil Judge (Junior Division), the rules of recruitment in Government service as prevalent in the State would apply. Thus, the reservation rule applies and there is a 200-point roster for the purpose. The Public Service Commission conducts the recruitment examination and forwards the list of successful candidates to the High Court for the High Court's acceptance before the appointments are made.

5. The issue that has arisen is whether the determination of inter se seniority at the Civil Judge (Junior Division) entry-level at the time of recruitment would be on the basis of the roster positions of the recruits or otherwise. So that there is no element of suspense, particularly since the legal issue has been conclusively answered in at least two previous judgments of this Court and wholesomely affirmed by the Supreme Court, it must be recognised that the roster positions have no nexus with the inter se seniority positions of all recruits appointed simultaneously.

6. This order of seniority which is decided at the time that the successful candidates are born into the cadre is of paramount importance as it influences the further progress of the candidate to the two upper tiers and even has an impact in their possible elevation to the High Court. The State and the Public Service Commission still maintain that the roster positions would govern the inter se seniority of the judicial officers recruited, notwithstanding the previous judgments of this Court reported at 2015 (1) MLJ 645 (Swarnam J. Natarajan vs. High Court of Judicature at Madras) and 2015 (4) MLJ 281 (N.Santosh Kumar vs. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission). Indeed, by the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, the State attempted to undo the effect of the judgments in Swarnam J. Natarajan and N.Santosh Kumar, but the offending provisions were struck down by a judgment reported at 2019 (6) CTC 750 (K.Raja vs. Additional Chief Secretary).

7. The petitions pertain to the recruitment conducted in 2009 and the order of seniority for Civil Judges (Junior Division) who were recruited in that