Non-disclosure of old acquitted criminal cases or unserved proceedings in judicial recruitment applications not fatal after long service, absent deliberate suppression; practice eligibility satisfied by prescribed certificates; Selection Committee discretion protected.

ORDER :

A common order is passed in these matters, since the cause of action in all three writ petitions is as against the selection of 23 candidates to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) pursuant to Notification dated 02.05.2013. These Writ Petitions have been instituted in the years 2013, 2014 and 2016, and have been posted before several Benches over the years. They are now before us as Specially Ordered matters. The successful candidates were appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) under G.O.Ms.No.5, Public (Special A) Department dated 02.01.2014. They have been in office thereafter till date.

2. Mr.N.Bharathirajan has filed W.P.No.23734 of 2013 and W.P.No.9664 of 2014 and Mr.A.Kannan has filed W.P.No.12759 of 2016. They were both aspirants to the post of District Judge (Entry Level), having completed their B.L. degrees in the year 2005 and 2000 respectively.

3. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows, and the parties are referred to herein as per their array in W.P.No.12759 of 2016.

4. The Public Department of the Chennai Secretariat had issued a Notification on 02.05.2013 (2013 Notification) calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post of 23 District Judges (Entry Level). Both the petitioners had responded to the Notification and participated in the selection process.

5. The process for selection comprised of a written examination that was held on 06.07.2013, followed by viva voce. On account of their performance in the viva voce, the petitioners’ overall rank had been reduced substantially when compared with the rank that they had obtained based on the written examination alone.

6. Neither of their names figured in the selection list that was published on 06.08.2013 and ultimately the successful candidates had been appointed as District Judges (Entry Level) under G.O.Ms.No.5, Public (Special A) Department dated 02.01.2014 (2014 G.O.).

7. In the Writ Petitions filed by Mr.N.Bharathirajan, he is aggrieved by the procedure followed by the Selection Committee in awarding marks in the viva voce and alleges that the selection process was not carried out in a proper or transparent manner.

8. In fact, W.P.No.9664 of 2014 had been filed by him since no interim protection was obtained in W.P.No.23734 of 2013, which had challenged only the provisional selection list that had ultimately culminated in the 2014 G.O. under which 23 successful candidates had been appointed as District Judges (Entry Level).

9. In W.P.No.9664 of 2014, he reiterates the grounds of challenge in W.P.No.23734 of 2013 to the effect that the selection process had vested excessive powers in the Selection Committee that could, based on the marks awarded in viva voce, decide the ranking of the candidates at their discretion.

10. Mr.A.Kannan, petitioner in W.P.No.12759 of 2016 has made specific allegations in regard to eligibility of four of the respondents. In fact, while all 23 of the successful District Judges have been arrayed as respondents (R5 to R27), the writ affidavit has elaborated on specific allegations only against 4 respondents, viz., Mr.D.Lingeswaran/R8, Ms.A.Deepthi Arivunithi/R18, Mr.Abdul Kadhar/R22 and Ms.Sameena/R27.

11. Even in the course of the hearing before us, there are no allegations as against the other successful candidates except to state that they are beneficiaries of