ORDER :

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the First Respondent in R.O.C. No. 9099/2017-Con.B1 dated 29.01.2019 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction, and further direct the Third Respondent to appoint the Petitioner as Civil Judge, Junior Division by issuance of a notification.

We have heard Mr. V.Raghavachari, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. B.Vijay, Learned Counsel for the First Respondent, Mr. V.Vaithyalingam, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and Mr. P.Muthukumar, Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The Petitioner challenges the proceedings in Official Memorandum Roc. No. 9099/2017-Con.B1 dated 29.01.2019 of the First Respondent in which he has been informed that he is not fit to be considered for the post of Civil Judge by direct recruitment in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the application for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge submitted by him in pursuance of the Notification No. 08/2018 dated 09.04.2018 issued by the Second Respondent, he has in the relevant column truly disclosed the registration of a criminal case in Special C.C. No. 2 of 2012 on the file of the Mahila Court, Coimbatore for alleged commission of offences under Section 366-A and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in which he has been acquitted by judgment dated 07.11.2014, but the impugned order has been passed causing grave prejudice to his career in life, apart from unlawfully denying his selection in the judicial service of the State.

3. The First Respondent resists the claim of the Petitioner by highlighting that though he has been acquitted in the criminal case, it has been discerned from the materials borne out of the record in those proceedings that it was not an 'honourable acquittal' as the prosecution did not take any steps to conduct the case effectively and totally abdicated the responsibility of conducting fair prosecution. Further, it is stated that the Petitioner had appeared both for the complainant and the accused in a criminal case in S.T.C. No. 689 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Fast Tract Court – I, Erode under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as reflected in the judgment dated 02.03.2017 passed in that case, which is in violation of professional ethics and amounts to professional misconduct. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Recruitment Committee of the High Court, having due regard to these relevant antecedents of the Petitioner, was of the considered opinion that the Petitioner was not fit and suitable for appointment to the post of Civil Judge and would disentitle him to be appointed as a Civil Judge, which has culminated in the impugned order.

4. The primordial attack of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the impugned order is that once the Petitioner has been acquitted of the charge for commission of an offence by the Criminal Court, it is not permissible for the High Court to express a different view on the culpability of the Petitioner in that case during recruitment for a judicial post. Similarly, it is contended that the High Court cannot assess breach of 'professional ethics' without any authority of law in such recruitment proceedings.

5. At the outset, it may be taken note of the fact that the impugned order has been passed determining the 'suitability' of the Petitioner for holding judicial office in the State, which certainly requires maintenance of higher standards of moral conduct in life than other forms of public employment. It would be beneficial in this context to refer to the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Ind