S. B. Sanyal, J.

Both these writ petitions are directed against the procedures of selection of direct recruits of Additional District and Sessions Judge, as envisaged under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. Since the two petitions challenge the process of selection for oral interview which is to commence from 3rd November 1990, they are disposed of at the stage of admission itself after hearing both the parties.

2. In C. W. J. C. No. 6582 of 1990 petitioner nos. 1 to 4, claim to be the applicants for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge pursuant to an advertisement dated 8.2.1985 (Annexure-1) and petitioner nos. 5&6 are non-applicants for the aforesaid post. Petitioner no. 2 also claims to be a member of the backward class under Annexure II. In C. W. J.C, No 6700/90 the petitioner, who is an advocate of this Court and not an applicant for this post, assails the advertisement dated 8. 2. 1935 (Annexure 1) and the advertisement dated 20. 9. 1989 Annexure 2 by way of public interest litigation on the ground that there has been no reservation made in favour of backward classes, economically weaker classes and for women candidates inasmuch as the Government has taken a decision on 10th November 1978 in exercise of power conferred under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India to reserve 8% for other backward classes, 12% for extremely backward classes 3% for women candidates and 3% for economically weaker section of the society for appointment in State Services.

3. In C. W. J. C No. 6582/90 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners pressed the following six points only.

(1) Some Assistant public prosecutors appointed under section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not advocates, and those who are enrolled as Advocates cannot count their period of Government service towards fulfilling the requirement of seven years practices but such persons have also been called for interview.

Further, they are debarred from being, considered in view of Article 233 (2) of the constitution, as they are in the service of the Union or of the state.

It has been stated that more thal1 15 Assistant public prosecutors appointed under section 25 (1) Cr. P. C. have been caned for interview having qualified in the written test out of whom Sri Birendra Kumar Sharma, Sri Rajendra Pd. Mishra and Sri Jitendra prasad Sinha were never enrolled as advocates in any Bar Council and/or under the Advocates Act.

(ii) The examination of the answer books through the Computer has resulted in non-appraisal of many answer books of the candidates who have not filled up the six squares at the bottom of the answer books resulting in non-acceptance of the answer sheets by the Computer. There was no warning of this imperativeness, either on the uest on paper or in the answer book. The evaluation of answer-sheets, therefore, should have been done manually and Dot by Computer in order to prevent such gross injustice.

(III) In adopting the selection process the Court has violated the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.P. Verma Vs. State of Bihar (1989 P. L. J. R. 1031) for the reasons:

(a) The Court did not flame new Rules for selection nor it followed the old Rules.

(b) The respondent noted illegally in clubbing the vacancies of 1985 and 1989 and holding a composite test for all the Vacancies.

(C) In issuing the interview letters the respondents ought to have maintained the ratio of 26 posts into 4 for vacancies of the year 1985 and 6 into 4 for vacancies of the year 1989. In short 104 candidate ought to have been allowed to be interviewed from 1985 applicants and 24 candidates from 1989 applicants, where as 129 candidates have been called for interview ignoring the year of vacancy. The clubbing of the vacancies, therefore, has caused grave injustice and inequality.

(IV) Those candidates who become only eligible in the year 1987 under no circumstance can be considered for