Selection Committee’s Assessment Not Open To Interference Absent Serious Concerns: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 2013 District Judge Recruitment

The Court found that the grievances raised against the recruitment process were vague and general in nature.

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates with the challenge primarily related to the assessment of candidates, award of viva voce marks and the eligibility of certain selected candidates about the requirement of seven years’ practice as advocates.

A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar observed: “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. We do not, in the present matter, find any such justification as the grievances raised are vague and general in nature.”

“It is not for the unsuccessful candidates, after having participated in the selection, to disparage the process followed without assigning any concrete reasons or justification for their objections, … In the present case, the grievances put forth by the petitioners do not indicate any concerns, let alone valid concerns”, the Bench added.

Advocates R. Subramanian and N. Subramaniyan appeared for the petitioners. Senior Advocate P.M. Subramanian appeared for the respondents.

Background

The writ petitions challenged the selection and appointment of 23 candidates to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) pursuant to a notification issued in 2013. The successful candidates were appointed under a Government Order issued in January 2014 and had continued in service thereafter.

Two unsuccessful candidates who had participated in the recruitment process challenged the selection, alleging a lack of transparency in viva voce marks and questioning the eligibility of certain selected candidates.

One of the principal contentions raised in the writ petitions was that two selected candidates did not satisfy the eligibility condition requiring seven years’ practice as advocates on the date of notification.

According to the petitioners, those candidates had filed very few vakalats, were not regularly attending court and therefore lacked sufficient legal practice to qualify for appointment as District Judges.

The selected candidates defended their appointments, contending that they had produced certificates from the Presiding Officers of the Courts where they practised, as specifically required under the 2013 notification.

The High Court administration also submitted that the 2013 notification did not prescribe any qualitative assessment of advocacy practice and only required certification regarding the duration of practice.

Court’s Observation

The Division Bench observed that the 2013 notification prescribed eligibility conditions requiring candidates to have practised as advocates for not less than seven years as on the date of notification.

The Court noted that the notification specifically required production of a certificate from the Presiding Officer of the Court in which the candidate was actually practising to establish the requisite experience.

The Bench reproduced the experience certificate submitted by one of the selected candidates, wherein the Presiding Officer had certified that the candidate had been practising as an advocate in that Court for eight years.

While observing that a mere certificate may not ideally reveal the quality or extent of actual legal practice, the Court noted that the High Court had subsequently amplified the eligibility criteria in later recruitment notifications issued in 2023. The Bench nevertheless clarified that the present dispute had to be examined solely based on the conditions stipulated in the 2013 notification.

The Court observed that both selected candidates had produced the exact certificates required under the notification and that the petitioners themselves had admitted the genuineness of those certificates. The Bench further noted that one of the selected candidates had additionally produced chamber affidavits, copies of court orders, legal notices and case status records to demonstrate the nature of her practice.

The Court observed: “Ideally, there should be some amplification of this requirement, in that a mere certificate would not suffice to reveal the experience of the candidate. The Certificate must be accompanied by other supporting materials, illustrating and attesting to the quality of the practice engaged in, and the experience gained”.

It, however, held: “… in this case, concerned with the 2013 Notification only, we are required solely to ensure that the candidates had complied with the conditions thereunder. The requirement under that Notification to establish the criterion of ‘experience’ is a certificate from the Presiding Officer of the Court where they had normally practised, …. no other material is called for in this regard under the Notification”.

Rejecting the challenge to their eligibility, the Court held that once the candidates had complied with the requirements expressly prescribed under the notification, additional standards could not retrospectively be imposed after their appointment and years of service.

The Court also reiterated that selection of District Judges had been undertaken by a Selection Committee comprising senior Judges of the High Court and that judicial interference in such selections would not ordinarily be warranted in the absence of concrete allegations.

The Court clarified that “the selection of the judges is normally entrusted to senior judges who address the process in right earnest following the procedure outlined for such selection, … the question papers and questions for the viva voce are set after great effort and discussion, in order to ensure that the best candidates are selected from among the aspirants”.

The Bench accordingly concluded: “… The process of selection has been undertaken by a Selection Committee comprising three senior Judges of this Court, and the candidates have produced the requisite documents to attest to their eligibility and qualifications. All relevant material in this regard has been placed before the Selection Committee. Hence, we see no cause to intervene”.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the appointments of the selected District Judges.

The Bench, however, directed the High Court administration to place the petitioners’ suggestions regarding eligibility criteria before the appropriate committee for consideration in future recruitment processes.

Cause Title: N. Bharathirajan v. The High Court of Madras & Ors. And Connected Matters (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:1721)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates R. Subramanian, K.S. Gnanasambandan, N. Subramaniyan, Sathiyaraj, J.K. Prabhakaran & Ors

Respondents: P.M. Subramanian, T. Mohan & Om Prakash, Senior Advocates; Advocates G.K. Kumaresan, P.K. Rajagopal; P. Anandakumar, Government Advocate & Ors

Click here to read/download Judgment