Back
Ends 13-Year Saga: Upholds 2013 District Judge Appointments Amid Suppression Claims
In a detailed common order spanning decades of litigation, the dismissed three writ petitions challenging the selection and appointment of 23 candidates as District Judges (Entry Level) from 2013. The bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Mr. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar ruled that vague grievances over marks and general process flaws offered no grounds for interference, while specific eligibility and suppression allegations against four candidates also failed scrutiny. The judges, appointed under G.O.Ms.No.5 dated , have served over 12 years.
From Notification to Courtroom Marathon
The saga began with a , notification from inviting applications for 23 District Judge (Entry Level) posts. Petitioners N. Bharathirajan (WPs 23734/2013 and 9664/2014) and A. Kannan (WP 12759/2016)—both 2000s law graduates and aspirants—cleared the written exam on , ranking 26th and 20th respectively out of 150 marks. But low scores (under 25) dropped them to 67th and 73rd, excluding them from the , provisional list.
Bharathirajan targeted the Selection Committee—three senior judges—for "excessive powers" in ranking. Kannan escalated with pointed claims against four selects: D. Lingeswaran (R8), A. Deepthi Arivunithi (R18), Abdul Khader (R22), and S. Sameena (R27), alleging insufficient practice and hidden criminal/civil cases. All 23 appointees were arrayed as respondents across petitions, now specially ordered before this bench after years across multiple courts.
As noted in a recent summary (), the petitions lingered from 2013-2026, with appointees holding office uninterrupted.
Petitioners' Volley: Transparency, Practice, and Hidden Pasts
Petitioners decried the 75:25 written-viva split enabling "discretionary" overrides, citing poor interview questions and opaque marks. Bharathirajan sought to quash the list for lacking video recording, criminal checks, and post-interview mark publication.
Kannan zeroed in: R18 and R27 lacked "seven years' practice" under notification clause 3(ii), backed by low vakalat filings and irregular attendance. R8 hid a 2004 FIR (Cr. No.16/2004, CC 9617/2005: ) and OS 423/2012 (D9). R22 concealed a 2004 acquittal (SC 34/2005: ). Full disclosure was demanded via application form questions 14-16.
Heavy reliance on precedents like () and ().
Defenders' Shield: Compliance, Ignorance, and Acquittal Grace
The High Court and state countered: Selection Committees of senior judges enjoy wide discretion; petitioners' gripes were "vague and general." All produced Presiding Officer certificates attesting 7+ years' practice—exactly as required, no qualitative proof needed in 2013 (unlike amplified 2023 norms).
R8 and R22: No summons served, hence no knowledge—confirmed by records and prior WP 23766/2014 ruling (no deliberate suppression). R22 admitted omission but stressed 10-year-old false case, acquittal finality, and oral disclosure to Committee. R18/R27 bolstered with affidavits, orders, and notices proving practice.
Citing and (upholding processes), respondents urged dismissal.
Dissecting Discretion: Certificates Enough, No Foul Play Found
The bench drew lines sharply. General challenges? Dismissed:
"Once a Selection Committee has been formed... their
unless serious and very valid concerns are raised."
Petitioners participated fully, offering no concrete flaws.
Practice claims crumbled: 2013 rules mandated only duration certificates, duly filed and genuine.
"Ideally, there should be some amplification... but as we are... concerned with the 2013 Notification only, we are required solely to ensure that the candidates had complied."
Suppression? R8's criminal case surfaced post-selection via court-directed probe; no prior police flag, summons unserved, prior bench exonerated. Civil suit? Substituted service, but no personal notice. R22's omission noted per
Avtar Singh
(
"one error would [not] compromise his entire service of the past 12 years"
). Committees knew materials; no vitiation.
Administrative complaints against R8 left for internal review post-judgment.
Key Observations
"The grievances raised are ."
"A mere certificate would not suffice to reveal the experience of the candidate. The Certificate must be accompanied by other, supporting materials... [but] both candidates have satisfied the requirement of the Notification in full."
"There is nothing to indicate that R8 was aware of the civil court proceedings."
"Though there has been an omission by R22... we are not persuaded to hold that that one error would compromise his entire service of the past 12 years."
Final Verdict: Petitions Tossed, Process Stands
All writs dismissed sans costs. No interference with 23 appointments. Petitioner's 2023 notification suggestions forwarded for future tweaks. Implications? Reinforces judicial selection sanctity, limits eligibility probes, prioritizes notified criteria over ideals. For Tamil Nadu's bench, stability after 13 years; for aspirants, a reminder: participate, don't disparage without proof.
