V. Ramasubramanian, J.

The petitioner, who appeared for selection to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) under the quota reserved for direct recruitment, has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the action of the High Court in inviting the 7th respondent to appear for viva voce and also the action of the Registry in selecting the 7th respondent to the post of District Judge (Entry Level), as against an unreserved vacancy.

2. Heard Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.

3. By a notification dated 15.04.2017, applications were invited for appointment to four posts of District Judges (Entry Level) by way of direct recruitment. Out of those four posts, one was reserved for Scheduled Tribes; one was reserved for the candidates belonging to BC (B) category and the remaining two were unreserved. However, out of the remaining two unreserved posts, one was intended to be filled by woman.

4. It was indicated in the notification for direct recruitment that as per Rule 6(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules 2007, the candidates appearing for the selection will be subject to a written examination, carrying maximum marks of 80 and viva voce carrying maximum marks of 20. The minimum qualifying marks in the written examination were prescribed to be 40% for open category candidates, 35% for the candidates belonging to Backward Classes and 30% for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. No minimum marks were prescribed for viva voce.

5. The written examination was held on 10.09.2017 and the results of the written examination were declared on 30.11.2017. The candidates, who were declared qualified in the written examination, were invited to attend the viva voce on 11.12.2017. The petitioner was one among the candidates, who were so invited to attend the viva voce.

6. At this stage it may be relevant to point out that the petitioner was permitted to appear for the written examination, by virtue of an interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A.No.40050 of 2017 in W.P.(C).No.354 of 2017. The fixation of qualifications was the subject matter of dispute in the said writ petition and the question was as to whether the services rendered by a judicial officer is to be counted as experience at the bar.

7. We have brought on record the above fact, only for the purpose of completion of narration. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition has nothing to do with the issue pending before the Supreme Court or the interim order passed by the Supreme Court pursuant to which the petitioner was permitted to appear for the written examination.

8. As stated earlier, viva voce was held on 11.12.2017 in which six candidates participated. Thereafter, by a notification dated 07.07.2018, three candidates were declared as provisionally selected for appointment. These candidates are arrayed as respondents 7, 9 & 10 in the present writ petition. But the writ petition was not pressed as against respondents 8 to 10, and hence the same was dismissed on 27.07.2018 against respondents 8 to 10.

9. Therefore, the challenge in this writ petition is confined only to the selection of the 7th respondent and the challenge to his selection is on a very limited ground.

10. The petitioner herein as well as the 7th respondent belong to BC (D) category. No post was reserved for BC (D) in the selection in question. Therefore, both the petitioner as well as the 7th respondent were entitled to compete only for the single post kept unreserved for the general category. The marks secured by the petitioner and the 7th respondent are as follows:-

Candidate	Marks in written examination (out of Max of 8