R. Devdas, J.

These writ petitions relate to direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judges in the subordinate judicial services in the State.

2. The High Court of Karnataka notified 50 vacancies to be filled up in the recruitment Notification dated 30.06.2015. About 2,348 candidates appeared for the written examination, while only 16 candidates emerged successful in the written examination which consisted of two papers in Civil and Criminal law. The minimum marks prescribed for SC/ST candidates for being considered for interview/viva-voce is 45%, while candidates of general merit had to secure minimum of 50%, in the written examination. The petitioners secured more than the minimum prescribed marks as stipulated and were called for interview. When the final select list was announced on 07.12.2015, only eight candidates found their names in the final select list, while the names of the petitioners did not find a place in the final select list. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri B.V. Acharya, appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not informed the petitioners, the reason for their non-inclusion in the final select list. Informally, the petitioners were later given to understand that the petitioners were not selected because they have not obtained the minimum marks prescribed in the interview/viva-voce. The learned Senior Counsel points out to sub-clause (d) of Clause (1) of the recruitment Notification which prescribes minimum of 40% to SC/ST candidates and a minimum of 45% to General Merit candidates in interview for being eligible to be considered for selection to the post. The main ground of attack is the prescription of minimum marks in the provision, clause (1) (d) of the recruitment Notification.

4. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi and Another reported in, (2010) 3 SCC 104. It was pointed out that in the said decision, the earlier case in Durgacharan Misra Vs. State of Orissa reported in, (1987) 4 SCC 646 was also considered. In Durgacharan's case (supra), the Apex Court considered the Orissa Judicial Service Rules which did not provide for prescribing minimum cut-off marks in interview for the purpose of selection. The Apex Court held that in absence of the enabling provision for fixation of minimum marks in interview if minimum marks are prescribed, it would amount to amending the Rules itself. While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments in B.S.Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, (1980) Supp1 SCC 524, P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 141 and Umesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 721, wherein it had been held that there was no 'inherent jurisdiction' of the selection committee/authority to lay down such norms for selection in addition to the procedure prescribed by the Rules. Selection is to be made giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and if such power i.e., 'inherent jurisdiction' is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the Rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm.

5. It was further observed that in the case of All India Judges Association (3) Vs. Union of India reported in, (2002) 4 SCC 247, the Apex Court accepted Justice Shetty Commission's report which had prescribed for not having minimum marks for interview. The Apex Court further explained that to give effect to the said judgment, the existing statutory Rules may be amended. However, till the amendment is carried out, the vacancies shall be filled as per the existing statutory Rules. It was further observed that similar view was reiterated in the case of Syed T.A Naqshbandi Vs. State of J & K, (2003) 9 SCC 592 and Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) Vs. U. P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 17 SCC 703. It was fu