Madras High Court Dismisses Petitions Against District Judges’ Appointments
Madras High Court dismisses pleas challenging appointment of district judges in Tamil Nadu.
The Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the selection process for the appointment of district judges in Tamil Nadu, holding that judicial selection committees’ discretion cannot ordinarily be interfered with unless there are serious and substantiated irregularities. A division bench comprising Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar delivered the ruling recently while rejecting petitions filed by N. Bharathirajan and A. Kannan, who had challenged the 2013 recruitment process for entry-level district judges. The petitions were filed in 2013, 2014, and 2016 and were heard together before being disposed of by the court.
The recruitment process in question was initiated through a notification issued on May 2, 2013, for the appointment of 23 district judges. The selection involved a written examination followed by a viva voce (oral interview). According to the petitioners, they had initially secured higher ranks—26 and 20 respectively—after the written examination stage, but their rankings dropped significantly to 67 and 73 following the interview process.
The petitioners alleged irregularities in the selection procedure, including suppression of information regarding criminal antecedents of certain candidates and questions over the eligibility and qualifications of four selected individuals who are currently serving as district judges. They also argued that these alleged deficiencies had rendered the entire selection process “tainted” and invalid, thereby affecting all appointments made under it.
Also Read: Indian Seafarer Reported Dead After Vessel Incident In Strait Of Hormuz Conflict Zone
However, the High Court rejected these claims, observing that once a duly constituted selection committee undertakes the evaluation process, its discretion in assessing candidates is not subject to judicial interference unless there are clear, serious, and legally sustainable grounds. The bench noted that allegations alone, without strong supporting evidence, are insufficient to overturn an entire recruitment process.
With this finding, the court dismissed the petitions, effectively upholding the validity of the district judge appointments made through the 2013 selection process. The ruling reinforces the principle that judicial review in matters of recruitment is limited and courts should exercise restraint in interfering with expert assessment bodies unless procedural illegality or arbitrariness is clearly established.
