K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—A batch of four writ petitions were taken up peremptorily for hearing on 10.07.2024, only since the main examinations for selection to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) is scheduled on 14.07.2024. C.W.J.C. No. 10397 of 2024 which too raised identical issues was heard on 11.07.2024 and reserved for judgment. The matters are disposed off by this common judgment.

2. C.W.J.C. No.9746 of 2024 is filed by six candidates who have objected to question No.9 and the answers to questions Nos.48, 58 and 94. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that with respect to the second petitioner, as per the OMR mark-sheet obtained yesterday which has been uploaded by the Registry of the High Court, her total marks would go above that which was prescribed as the cut-off mark in her category. In C.W.J.C. No.9829 of 2024, in addition to the objections raised on the question & answers as hereinabove noted, the learned Counsel also argued on the basis of the tabular column extracted in the writ petition; that even persons who obtained as less marks as 14 and 18 are qualified in the preliminary test and called for the final examination. Specific reference is made to clause 6(f) of the advertisement produced as Annexure-P1, to point out that the minimum qualifying marks in screening/preliminary test could be relaxed for reserved category candidates, including women candidates only by 5%. It is also pointed out from Rule 4-A(vi) of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 (‘Rules of 1951’ for brevity), that, if after carry over of vacancies, they are not filled up from the reserved categories in the third selection process, for reason of the number of suitable candidates of the reserved categories being less than the number of vacancies reserved for them even after the exchange formula being implemented in the earlier selection processes, the remaining back-log vacancies would be filled up by suitable general category candidates after de-reserving the vacancies. It is argued that inclusion of candidates with very low marks confuses eligibility with suitability. The petitioners have relied on N.T Devin Katti and Others vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others: (1990) 3 SCC 157 and Nutan Kumari vs. B.R.A. Bihar University and Others; 2023 4 PLJR 373.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the High Court based on the counter affidavit submitted that there is no minimum qualifying mark provided for qualifying the preliminary examination/screening test. As per clause 5(c) (iii) of the Rules of 1951 the marks obtained in the screening test is relevant only for the purpose of eligibility to appear in the written test. The purpose of a screening test is only to short-list the candidates for the main examination. The rule also provides that ten times the number of vacancies for appointment are to be called for the main examination.

4. The question of whether there is any case for conceding the reserved vacancies to the general category candidates can arise only after the selection process is over. The candidates were invited for the main examination on the basis of the marks obtained, ensuring that ten times the vacancies in each category are allowed to participate in the main examination. While ensuring sufficient number; equal to ten times, all the candidates who obtained that particular cut-off mark will have to be called for the main examination. In the case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, no cut-off mark could be prescribed, at par with the other categories, since there were not enough candidates who got sufficient marks, to fulfill the requirement of permitting participation of candidates ten times the vacancy in that category.

5. Insofar as question No.94 is concerned, we have already held that candidates who marked both options; i.e.: (c) & (d) have to be qualified, in C.W.J.C. No.9263 of 2024 Ashutosh Kumar Mishra vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna. There is a revision of the ma