Madras High Court Upholds 2013 District Judge Selections, Rejects Suppression Allegations Against Selected Candidates - 2026-04-28

Madras High Court Upholds 2013 District Judge Selections, Rejects Suppression Allegations Against Selected Candidates

A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar , has dismissed three writ petitions challenging the selection and appointment of 23 candidates to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in 2013. The common judgment, delivered on 28.04.2026, brings to a close litigation that has remained pending since 2013 on the question of whether candidates had concealed criminal or civil antecedents and whether the Selection Committee's viva voce assessment was vitiated.

A Decade-Long Battle Over Judicial Selections

The litigation arose from a notification issued by the Public Department of the Tamil Nadu Secretariat on 02.05.2013 inviting applications for 23 posts of District Judge (Entry Level). Both petitioners— N. Bharathirajan (a 2005 B.L. graduate) and A. Kannan (a 2000 B.L. graduate)—participated in the selection process. The process involved a written examination held on 06.07.2013, followed by a viva voce before a Selection Committee comprising three senior judges of the High Court.

The petitioners' names appeared at serial numbers 26 and 20 respectively on the merit list published after the written examination. However, following the viva voce, their rankings collapsed to serial numbers 67 and 73, effectively eliminating them from the final selection list published on 06.08.2013. The successful candidates were subsequently appointed under G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 02.01.2014.

The Vague Grievances Against the Viva Voce

The petitioner in W.P. No. 23734 of 2013 and W.P. No. 9664 of 2014 argued that the selection process vested excessive powers in the Selection Committee, allowing it to determine candidate rankings through discretionary viva voce marks. The court was unpersuaded, observing that grievances raised were "vague and general in nature."

> "Once a Selection Committee has been formed to undertake the process of assessment and selection of candidates, their discretion is normally not liable to be interfered with unless serious and very valid concerns are raised," the Bench held.

The court further noted that it is not for unsuccessful candidates, after having participated in a selection, "to disparage the process followed without assigning any concrete reasons or justification for their objections."

Certificates Sufficed for Practice Requirement

Turning to specific allegations against four respondents, the court addressed challenges to the eligibility of A. Deepthi Arivunithi (R18) and S. Sameena (R27) regarding the requirement of seven years of practice as advocates under clause 3(ii) of the 2013 Notification.

The court noted that the requirement under the Notification was to be established through a certificate from the Presiding Officer of the court where the candidate was "actually practising." Both candidates had produced certificates in the prescribed format. For R18, the certificate from the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, stated she had practiced for eight years. R18 also submitted an additional affidavit from advocate Sudha Ramalingam, with whom she had practiced, attesting to both the tenure and quality of her work.

"Both R18 and R27 have produced certificates in the format as provided for in the Notification," the court observed. "To seek additional material in 2016, two years after the appointment of R18 and R27 when they have been in service for the intervening period is not proper or practical."

Regarding R27's police enquiry report suggesting she had not been practicing recently, the court noted the Selection Committee had been aware of her litigation and had taken a conscious decision that the disputes would not be a bar to her selection.

No Knowledge, No Suppression: The Case of D. Lingeswaran

The most substantial allegations were directed against D. Lingeswaran (R8) , who faced claims of suppressing both criminal and civil proceedings. The criminal case involved Crime No. 16 of 2004 under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 149 IPC, which culminated in charge sheet in C.C. No. 9617 of 2005 before the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.

The court noted a prior Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 23766 of 2014 (dated 28.07.2016) which had already concluded that R8 had not deliberately suppressed the criminal case, as summons had never been served upon him. The Bench quoted the earlier finding: "The Investigating Officer/Station House Officer of B-4 Police Station, High Court, Madras, while filing the Final Report, ought to have applied his mind and given proper description of the accused."

The court also examined allegations regarding R8's non-disclosure of O.S. No. 423 of 2012, where he was arrayed as the ninth defendant. The docket orders revealed summons had been issued but returned unserved, leading to substituted service by publication. "In light of the admitted non-service of summons upon him, there is nothing to indicate that R8 was aware of the civil court proceedings," the court concluded. "The attempt of the Petitioner to establish or conclude that there has been suppression of material facts hence fails."

The court also noted that while questions lingered regarding R8's knowledge of a Miscellaneous Petition filed in his name, the absence of a vakalathnama and the prevailing practice on the criminal side supported the conclusion of no deliberate suppression. The criminal case was ultimately withdrawn on 02.07.2017.

Twelve Years of Service Not Compromised by One Omission

Regarding Abdul Khader (R22) , the court acknowledged his admission that he had been aware of his involvement in Crime No. 1891 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 307 IPC, for which he was acquitted in S.C. No. 34 of 2005. R22 conceded that he had omitted to disclose the matter in his application form, attributing the omission to the case being ten years old and ending in acquittal.

While the court recognized the omission, it declined to treat the lapse as fatal to his entire career. "Undoubtedly, there has been an omission by R22 in not making a full disclosure in the application form as to the criminal antecedents. However we are not persuaded to hold that that one error would compromise his entire service of the past 12 years, since January 2014."

Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Avtar Singh v. Union of India , the court observed that where acquittal has been recorded and the matter is not trivial, the employer may consider all relevant facts. Given that R22's acquittal had attained finality, the court dismissed the challenge against him as well.

Suggestion for Future Selections

Recognizing the need for more robust eligibility verification, the court directed the Registrar General to place the petitioner's suggestions regarding eligibility criteria before the appropriate Committee for consideration in future selections. This followed the observation that the High Court had already revised educational and other qualifications in its 2023 District Judge Notification compared to the 2013 iteration.

The Bench also directed that complaints pending on the administrative side regarding R8, which awaited the closure of these writ petitions, be decided by the concerned Committee on merits.

In the result, all three writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.