M CHOKKALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is an advocate practising at Madurai and belonging to Backward Category, appeared for the examination conducted for recruitment to the post of District Judge, pursuant to the advertisement/notification dated 10. 08. 2003. Applications were called for to fill up 10 vacancies as given below:-<FRM>JUDGEMENT_265_TLMAD0_2008Html1.htm</FRM> The petitioner, having not been selected, has preferred this Writ Petition for a direction on the respondents to furnish the details of all the 30 shortlisted candidates, who attended the viva-voce examination for the post of District Judge by way of Direct Recruitment pursuant to the oral interview held on 26. 04. 2004 and 27. 04. 2004.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that separate writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of those persons/candidates, who have been appointed as District Judges.

(3.) NO counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.