The Madras high court, which is readying itself to recruit 185 civil judges (junior division), may have to wade through a brewing legal battle.

The last time the higher judiciary got the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to select such a large number of judicial officers, who will occupy the lower most rung of the judicial ladder, was in 2009 when more than 170 posts were filled.

Since 2009, there has been a spate of communication between the government and the high court on recruitment of civil judges, but it could not be started due to various reasons. Last month, prospects of new recruitments brightened when the government and TNPSC agreed, as a one-time measure, to allow the higher judiciary to have a predominant role in the selection. TNPSC shall have only a supportive role in the entire exercise.

After these issues were sorted out, the government issued the notification on January 21, triggering a wave of discontent and complaints from advocates and high court staff.

The higher judiciary has to answer at least three issues, as and when the matter is brought before it for adjudication.

First, the notification does not give any separate age relaxation for prospective candidates from SC/ST communities. While the upper age limit for the general category is 35, it has been relaxed by another five years for other reserved categories. "Obviously, it does not prescribe any special relaxation for SC/ST candidates, as provided for in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rule 1995, and followed in the last recruitment," says advocate P Vijendran. "Worse, there is no upper age limit relaxation at all for reserved communities such as SC/ST, BC and MBC as far as the fresh graduates are concerned," he said.

The notification stipulates that the minimum and maximum age limit for fresh law graduates is 22 and 27 years respectively. "For three-year as well as five-year law courses, the upper age limit is 27 years. If that be so, how can you have the same age limit for admission in law course as well as writing examination for appointment of civil judges," asks Vijendran.

The second issue pertains to the controversial decision to exclude law graduates working in the high court service, from writing the civil judges examination. "Assistant public prosecutors and practicing advocates have been allowed to sit for the examination, but we are expressly barred from participating in the process. The chief justice has been quoted as saying that he took the decision on requests from advocates. How is it fair?" asks a court employee, who is a law graduate.

The third issue is about the TNPSC's role in the selection process. "Tainted it may be, but the TNPSC is a constitutional body and it cannot cede its responsibility to the judiciary even by consent," says advocate K Balu, president, Advocates Forum for Social Justice. "We will agitate this issue before the court, and we hope the judiciary will see reason in our arguments," he said.

"We see substance in the court's decision to expedite the recruitment process with limited assistance from the TNPSC. At the same time, we want equal opportunity for all. We hope this issue will be resolved amicably," said a woman advocate, who is preparing for the examination scheduled to commence on March 24.