Judgment : The petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned proceedings of the first respondent-State Government dated 2.8.2007 passed in G.O. Ms. No. 74, appointing the 3rd respondent as the Kazifor the Salem District. 2. Under Section 2 of the Kazi Act, 1880, the first respondent is vested with the power to select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Kazisfor such local area, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area. In furtherance of the said provision, District Committees have been formed under the Chairmanship of the respective District Collectors. A vacancy arose in the Salem District for the post of the District Kazi. The District Committee met on 22.7.2005. There were four applicants for the post of District Kazi. The District Committee after considering the respective credentials of all the four candidates came to the following decision: Thereafter, the impugned G.O. came to be passed by the State Government, appointing the 3rd respondent, who is one of the 3 names which was forwarded by the District Committee. 3. Mr. Velumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who was one among the three, whose name was specifically suggested by the District Committee for appointment, submitted that applying Section 2 of the KazisAct, when once the District Committee specifically recommended the name of one among the three suggested candidates, there is no option for the State Government except to appoint that candidate and not to choose any other candidate from the recommendations made by the District Committee. 4. Having read the provision viz., Section 2 of the Kazis Act, I am not in a position to countenance the stand of the counsel for the petitioner. The relevant part of Section 2 of the Kazis Act reads as follows: “Wherever it appears to the (State Government) that any considerable number of Muhammadan residents in any local area desire that one or more Kazis should be appointed for such local area, the (State Government) may, if it thinks fit, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Kazis for such local area” 5. As per the said provision, the power of selection is vested with the State Government. As per the said provision, the power of selection is vested with the State Government. The consultation process provided in the said provision is only to enable the state Government to make a selection from amongst the candidates that may be suggested by the local Muhemmadan residents, who are represented by the District Committee. When the power is vested with the State Government to make the selection for appointing a person as a District Kazi, the role of the District Committee is limited to the extent of making the recommendation and leave it at that. Merely because the District Committee even after suggesting the names of 3 persons from amongst the candidates who applied for the status of District Kazi, makes a pointed reference to one particular person from among the recommended candidates, it cannot be taken to mean that he alone should be appointed by the State Government end none else can be selected and appointed from amongst the panel of candidates who were recommended by the District Level Committee. If such a construction as propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, that would negate the very provision as contained in Section 2 of the Kazis Act, which empowers only the State Government to make the selection and appointment. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the stand of the petitioner in seeking to challenge the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 74 dated 2.8.2007. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.