Facts: Petitioners challenged the rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks in interviews for the District Judiciary appointments, claiming it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They argued that such a rule disadvantaged candidate with high written exam scores but lower interview scores compared to those with lower written scores but higher interview scores.

Issue: Whether the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in interviews alone determines merit and suitability for appointments.

Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the rules requiring minimum qualifying marks in interviews as part of the selection criteria. The Court acknowledged that high scores in written exams do not solely determine merit, as various factors including social, economic, and cultural capital influence performance. The Court affirmed that the rules are fair and constitutionally valid, ensuring a level playing field for all candidates.