https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124338 The Court upheld the appointment of respondent No. 2 as a permanent Judge of the Madras High Court, finding it compliant with established norms and procedures. It emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in judicial appointments and noted that the practice of appointing permanent Judges from Additional Judges without extensive collegium consultation was consistent with previous judgments. The Court highlighted that judges found unsuitable for permanent appointment should not be granted extensions unless specific justifications exist. The writ petition challenging the appointment was dismissed. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124338 The Court upheld the appointment of respondent No. 2 as a permanent Judge of the Madras High Court, finding it compliant with established norms and procedures. It emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in judicial appointments and noted that the practice of appointing permanent Judges from Additional Judges without extensive collegium consultation was consistent with previous judgments. The Court highlighted that judges found unsuitable for permanent appointment should not be granted extensions unless specific justifications exist. The writ petition challenging the appointment was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124338