The court upheld the validity of the selection process and the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for the oral examination, emphasizing the importance of following the rules and the principle that candidates cannot challenge the selection process after participating in the examination.

C.S. Rajan, J.

The petitioner, while working in the ministerial wing of the subordinate judiciary, was promoted as a temporary Judicial Second Class Magistrate on 16.4.1984 and continued for about 5 years. After suffering a reversion for about 4 months, she was » again promoted as temporary Judicial Second Class Magistrate on 29.6.1989 and continued as such till 25.2.1991, on which date she was reverted again. Pursuant to Ext. P1, notification dt.16.1.1991 issued by the High Court of Kerala inviting applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Munsiffs in the Kerala Judicial Service, the petitioner also applied. According to Ext. P1 notification, the methods of recruitment are direct recruitment from the Bar and recruitment by transfer. The post the petitioner was holding was one of the feeder categories for recruitment by transfer. The selection process consisted of a written examination in three papers carrying a maximum of 100 marks each and an oral examination carrying a maximum of 50 marks. Only candidates who secured not less than 45 % marks in each of the papers of the written examination and 30% of the marks in the oral examination shall be eligible for appointment. According to the notification, the object of the oral examination is for deciding the candidates' s general knowledge, grasp of general principles of law, analytical ability and suitability for appointment as Munsiff.

2. The petitioner successfully passed the written examination and appeared for the oral examination. But in Ext.P3 list of candidates selected for appointment as Munsiffs, the petitioner's name did not Find a place. According to the petitioner, her name was excluded from the list on the ground that she did not secure the minimum 30% of the marks for the oral examination. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the above procedure adopted by the first respondent is opposed to the Kerala Civil Judicial Service Rules. According to the petitioner, the exclusion of her name was not justified when the rules did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks for oral examination. According to the petitioner, the marks of both the oral and written examination should be added together and persons who top in the aggregate total marks should be selected. The petitioner has a case that persons who got less marks in the written examination were selected because the petitioner did not get the minimum of 30% marks in the oral examination. According to the petitioner this is unreasonable and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.

3. Sri. Sahasranaman, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Durgacharan v. State of Orissa (AIR 1987 SC 2267). According to the counsel for the petitioner, this decision applies sqaurely to the facts of this case. In the above ruling of the Supreme Court, it was held as follows:

"9. This is the mandate of R.18. The commission shall add the two marks together, no matter what those marks at the viva voce lest. On the basis of the aggregate marks in both the tests, the names of candidates will have to he arranged in order of merit. The list so prepared shall be forwarded to the Government. The Commission has no power to exclude the name of any candidate from the select list merely because he has secured less marks at the viva voce test".

To come to the above conclusion, the Supreme Court also referred and relied on two earlier rulings of the Supreme Court reported in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 541) and Umesh Chandra v. Union of India (AIR 1985 SC 1351).

4. In the case of District Munsiff selection case (AIR 1987 SC 2267) rules 16 to 19 are the relevant rules, which have been relied on by the Supreme Court. According to R.16, the Commission shall summon for the viva voce test all candidates who secured at the written examination not less than the minimum qualifying marks obtained in all subjects taken together which shall