contended that candidates who score higher in the written exam but fail to meet the minimum oral interview marks are disadvantaged compared to those who score lower in the written exam but surpass the minimum oral interview marks.

Issues: Whether the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce violates the law laid down by the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India.

Important judgments referred to:

• All India Judges Page Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others [1992] l SCC 19

In this case a three Judges Bench after deliberating on the report dated 11.11.1999 submitted by Shetty Commission, inter alia, in the matter of direct recruitment of judicial officers, opined that subject to various modifications in the judgment, all other recommendations of the Commission are accepted. As because Shetty Commission while suggesting the procedure for selection of judicial officers had specifically indicated that the interview segment shall carry 50 marks without any minimum cut-off marks, the prescription of minimum marks in the viva-voce test is contended to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

Ratio of the case: Interviews are to produce better judicial candidates and do not violate Article 14; policies like moderation (of marks) should ideally be part of the rules.

Judgement

The court observed that the minimum qualifying marks requirement in the interviews/ viva voce test as a part of the Selection criteria for appointment to the District Judiciary in the states of Bihar and Gujarat. The prescription of minimum cut-off is also not perceived to be of such a nature that it reeks of irrationality or was capricious and/or without any adequate determining principle. It does not appear to be disproportionate so as to adversely affect “meritorious” candidates, as has been argued. It is certainly not manifestly arbitrary, or irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.