M DHANALAKSHMI Vs. GOVT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 17. 3. 2005 issued in G. O. (2d)No. 81, Home (Court. III) Department, and to quash the same in so far as the respondents 3 to 12 are concerned and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to fill the vacancies in the cadre of District Judge following the rule of reservation.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after enrolling herself as an Advocate in the year 1992, she has been practising both in civil and criminal side. When applications were called for to the post of District Judge, the petitioner had also applied for the same. She was called for the interview on 27. 4. 2004 and she had performed well in the interview. The first respondent, by G. O. (2d) No. 81, Home Department, dated 17. 3. 2005, appointed ten candidates as District Judges. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said G. O. , made a representation to the second respondent that she being the only women candidate, she ought to have been selected under the quota reserved for women candidates. Since no order has been passed on the said representation, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition.

(3.) IN view of the above observation, it is a misnomer to suggest that merely because the petitioner is the only lady candidate, she is entitled to be recruited in one of the three vacancies reserved for women, even though she is found to be not eligible by the selection Committee for recruitment to the post of District Judge. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No. 28281 of 2005 is also dismissed. .