Point of Law: Rule 12(1)(i) of Rules of 2006 prescribes that no person selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be appointed unless appointing authority is satisfied that he possesses a good moral character.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the petitioner herein for assailing the select list dated 06.05.2016 issued by the Registrar, Recruitment Cell, Gauhati High Court pursuant to the selection process held vide advertisement No. HC-XXXVII-29/2015/815/R.Cell dated 17.07.2015, issued by the Gauhati High Court for direct recruitment against 2(two) posts of Grade I officers in the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service and seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus to quash/modify the select list and direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner against one of these posts.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the minimum marks criterion introduced in the viva-voce conducted during the selection process.

The petitioner has questioned the competence of the High Court in introducing the said criterion on the ground that the applicable Rules, i.e. the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 do not contemplate fixing of minimum marks in viva-voce and thus, as per the petitioner, introduction of such condition in the advertisement is unreasonably arbitrary and ultra-vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.

3. Notices of the writ petition were issued to the respondents. Affidavits-in-opposition have been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4.

4. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, i.e., the Gauhati High Court, it is asserted that the advertisement specifically provided that the candidates who secured 60% or more marks or corresponding grade in the Mains written examination would be eligible to appear in the viva-voce exam with the proviso that APST (Scheduled Tribe) candidates with 50% or more marks in the Mains written examination would be entitled to appear in the viva-voce examination.

5. The advertisement also clearly provided that in the viva-voce of 50 marks, the candidates would have to secure 60% marks. 47 (forty seven) candidates appeared in the Preliminary examination. 20 (twenty) candidates in the ratio of 1:10 were found eligible for appearing in the Mains examination including the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6. Thereafter, the Mains written examination was conducted and the result of the same was issued vide notification dated 22.04.2016 declaring 5 (five) candidates including the petitioner and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the respondent No. 7 (whose name was struck off from the array of the parties), eligible for appearing in the viva-voce examination which was conducted on 27.04.2016 and the rank-wise tabulation was prepared. The average marks of interview scored by the petitioner were only 21.33 (42.66%), whereas the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 scored 38.67, 35.00 and 32.33 marks, respectively in the interview. Accordingly, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 having secured more than the prescribed minimum of 60% marks in the viva-voce, were declared selected on the basis of their merit positions, whereas the petitioner herein who could not score the minimum of 60% marks prescribed for the viva-voce/ interview as per the advertisement, was denied selection.

6. It is further submitted that as the petitioner participated in the written examination without challenging the condition of the advertisement dated 17.07.2015 categorically providing that a minimum of 60% marks would have to be scored in the viva-voce examination, he is estopped from questioning the said condition after being declared unsuccessful.

7. On these grounds, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have defended the impugned action.

8. The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply for countering the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by these respondents.

9. The petition was admitted for hearing vide order dated 22.11.2019. Final arguments were heard on 09.05.2023.

10. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and ferventl