CHENNAI: Once a selection committee has been formed to undertake the process of assessment and selection of candidates, its discretion is normally not liable to be interfered with unless serious and very valid concerns are raised, observed the Madras High Court while refusing to interfere with the selection process for appointing district judges in 2013.
The observation was made by a division bench of justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar recently dismissing the petitions, challenging the selection process for appointment of district judges, filed by N Bharathirajan and A Kannan in 2013, 2014 and 2016.
The notification for appointment of 23 district judges (entry level) was issued on May 2, 2013. Subsequently, written tests and viva voce were conducted. The two petitioners were ranked 26 and 20 before the viva voce, but post-viva voce, their rank dropped to 67 and 73, respectively.
The petitioners raised certain allegations, including suppression of facts on criminal antecedents and questioning the eligibility and qualifications, against four particular candidates selected for the posts who are currently serving as district judges. Further, they contended that the “tainted” selection process had vitiated the appointment of the remaining judges as well.
The bench held, “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. In the present case, the grievances put forth by the petitioners do not indicate any concerns, let alone valid concerns.”
Referring to the allegation of lack of seven years of mandatory practice for two of the successful candidates, the bench found the experience certificates furnished by two of the appointed persons duly valid and proper.
On the allegation of suppression of facts on criminal antecedents by one of the candidates, the bench said as per records, there is nothing to indicate he had knowledge of the pending criminal case since no summons was issued to him.
On a civil suit filed against another successful candidate and the acquittal by trial court, the bench observed that the court is not persuaded to hold that one error, of not making a full disclosure in the application form on the criminal antecedents, would compromise the entire service of past 12 years.