The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice and the concept of bias in judicial decision-making are crucial factors in challenging administrative decisions, and the High Court's recommendation is open to challenge on the judicial side.

1. The petitioner. an Advocate. enrolled in 1964 was a junior Government Pleader in the High Court from 1974 to 1976 and now. holds the post of the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor at Ernakulam from 21-2-1984. She is an Anglo Indian belonging to the Latin Catholic community. She Was one of the applicants for the post of a District Judge and her name was. however. not recommended by the High Court to the Government. though the panel of names submitted included fourteen names. The selection was based on an interview conducted by three senior judges of this Court. The petitioner contends that based on her performance at the interview. she was awarded very high marks to merit her inclusion within the first five and thus she was entitled to be selected on merit. But still her name was not recommended. even though the selection committee found 15 persons including herself "eligible for consideration". The majority of the committee held that the petitioner was 'ineligible for selection' in view of the criterion laid down in R.3(2)(c) of the Special Rules which insisted that the candidates concerned shall be of good character and thus it came to the conclusion that the panel to be sent to the Government need consist of only 14 persons omitting the name of the petitioner. The report of the committee was circulated among all the judges and at the judges' meeting held on 12th June. 1984. it was resolved by a majority to accept the majority report of the selection committee. Thus the High Court did not recommend the petitioner's name to the Government. The petitioner therefore filed this writ petition praying that the High Court may be directed to recommend her name also for appointment as District Judge. But. it later transpired that the Government decided to reject the entire recommendation and to call for fresh applications. The petitioner has subsequently amended her writ petition challenging this decision of the Government and for appropriate directions to include her in the panel to be sent to the Government.

2. The decision of the Government to invite fresh applications ignoring the selection already made and the recommendation already sent by the High Court is the subject matter of challenge in other writ petitions as well. Therefore this and other writ petitions were heard together. The decision of the Government is thus in common challenge in this and other writ petitions. we are delivering a separate judgment in the other writ petitions quashing the decision of the Government rejecting the recommendation.

3. Even when the decision of the Government is set aside. the petitioner's contention has to be considered independently and separately for. her complaint is against her non-inclusion in the panel sent to the Government and unless a direction is issued for inclusion of her name. she cannot claim; to be appointed.

4. The petitioner alleged in the writ petition:

"The exclusion of the name of the petitioner is solely on the basis of the alleged personal knowledge of the majority of the judges who participated in the Departmental Full Bench. about her character. which was acquired while they were practitioners in the Ernakulam Bar. Such a consideration it is submitted is totally irrelevant and extraneous.

To right a serious wrong done to the petitioner. the so-called personal knowledge of the judges should be totally excluded from consideration in which case. admittedly the petitioner is entitled to be included in the panel. Under the Kerala Higher Judicial Services Rules it is only the Appointing Authority who can reject a candidate's name on consideration of character. as the recommending authority has admittedly no machinery to assess the character of an individual. The petitioner therefore should be included in the panel as required by the Government now and a panel based on the interview held in the month of May 1984. should be sent to the Government of Kerala in accordance with the provisions of Art.