K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

Petitioner was an applicant to the post of District Judge when the High Court notified recruitment as per Ext. P1. He has completed 8 years of practice as lawyer and is qualified in terms of special rules as well as the qualification standards made mention of in Ext. P1. In Ext. PI notification, it was made clear to every applicant that selection will be on the basis of oral examination. It was also made clear that if the number of applicants is disproportionately large vis-a-vis the number of posts to be filled up, the High Court may short list the candidates by their length of practice at the Bar and such short listed candidates alone would be invited for oral examination. It was made clear that such shortlisting will not be applicable to the candidates belonging to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe, obviously because of the reservation available in respect of such castes and tribes and the experience of the High Court that sufficient number of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe are not being represented in the concerned service. Petitioner submits that the High Court had shortlisted the candidates on the basis of length of practice at the bar and the petitioner was not invited for interview. Petitioner further submits that, he understood that, only those candidates who have completed 10 years of length of practice at the bar alone were invited for interview, except in the case of SC/ST candidates. This amounts to discrimination and violation of the provisions contained in Art.233(2) of the Constitution of India. If such weeding out has to be adopted, that shall be uniformly made applicable to the SC/ST candidates as well, the petitioner contends. Otherwise, it will emerge as a discrimination to the persons like the petitioner, who had been weeded out inspite of possession of similar qualification.as the SC/ST candidates.

2. I am unable to accept this contention. Art.233(2) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

"A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a District Judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment."

This makes it clear that in the case of direct recruitment, an incumbent shall have practice for not less than 7 years an advocate or a pleader. It is the minimum requirement. It does not mean that the rule making authority or the appointing authority cannot fix higher standards than the minimum. Though Ext. P1 notification did not set out at the first instance the higher standard than that is required under the said Article to keep out situation of larger number of applications as compared to the available vacancies, a right was reserved in Ext. P1 notification itself to shortlist the candidates by the length of practice at the Bar. When applications are invited from candidates possessing minimum qualification stipulated in the notification which is in tune with the constitutional provisions in that behalf and when shortlist is prepared from among such qualified candidate based on longer years of practice, it cannot be taken that the provision contained in R.233(2) of the Constitution of India is violated. Because the candidates so shortlisted, will necessarily satisfy the minimum qualification made mention of in the said Article. There is no relaxation in the case of those who had been included in the shortlist by way of weeding out the persons with a lesser number of years practice in the Bar. So there is no discrimination or violation of any fundamental rights. Every recruitment agency in a situation of large number of applications as compared to the available number of vacancies to be filled up can shortlist the candidates based on the criterion as adopted in Clause 4 of Ext. P1 notification. Thus a general power is vested with the executive authority. The only restriction imposed on the executive authority will be that the candidates so s