The appointing authority has the power to demarcate the field of choice and prescribe a rational screening test to narrow the field of selection, even if it involves restricting the consideration to candidates with higher qualifications.

1. Annexure I to the High Court Service Rules, 1970 prescribes the qualifications for the post of Assistant Grade II which is Category 11 as the same as Category 8, Assistant Grade I. Category 8 for Assistant Grade I lays down the following qualifications:

The Ist respondent, who is the Registrar of the High Court, published a Notification Ext. P1 dated 27-10-1983 that it was proposed to prepare a select list of candidates for appointment as Assistants Grade II in the High Court as and when vacancies arise. It proceeded to say. so far as relevant, that applications were invited from first and second class Graduates/post-Graduates/Law Graduates from any recognised University to reach him on or before 15-11-1983 with copies of certain documents which were specified. The petitioner is a Graduate in Arts of the Kerala University but he is only a third class degree holder. He nevertheless sent an application to the Registrar for the post of Assistant Grade IT. In response the Registrar sent him a communication dated 11-11-1983 of which Ext. P3 is a copy saying that while his difficulties were appreciated (obviously he had ventilated some of his personal problems also in the application) "the High Court is not in a position to relax the qualifications for appointment in the High Court Service." The petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P1 in so far as it required that first or second class Graduates alone could apply for the post of Assistant Grade II, to quash Ext. P3 and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order to the Registrar to allow him to attend the test or examination that would be conducted for the selection of candidates for Assistant Grade II. The ground on which be seeks these reliefs is that while the rules require only a Degree of any University in India, Ext. P1 has modified the requirement by prescribing that only first or second class Graduates or post-Graduates or Law Graduates alone need apply and that this modification is unauthorised and illegal.

2. The 1st respondent had filed a counter affidavit. He has stated that although the minimum educational qualification for appointment as Assistant Grade II is prescribed by the rules, for the purpose of getting better qualified people it was notified in Ext. P1 as a preliminary screening of the candidates by fixing the eligibility for application as First Class or Second Class Graduation. This was a bona fide step; else there would be a flood of applications for a limited number of posts giving difficulties for screening the applications. The petitioner who is a third class Graduate was ineligible to apply. There were enough applications from candidates who had the requisite qualifications in terms of Ext. P1. This method of recruitment was followed on previous occasions also. Even from the first class and second class applicants, selection would be made on the basis of a test conducted by the High Court. There was no discrimination or violation of Art.14 or 16. The object of limiting the applications to the first class and second class graduates was to get the best candidates to improve the High Court Service as a whole. As for Ext. P3 it was said that the reply was given only as a gesture even though the Registrar was not bound to send a reply.

3. The thrust of the arguments on behalf of the petitioner is that the qualifications of Assistants Grade II having been prescribed by statutory rules framed under Art.229 of the Constitution and as under the rules it is enough that the applicant is a graduate irrespective of the class he has secured at the graduation, it was beyond the power of the Registrar to add to the statutory rules by modifying the qualifications and insisting that the applicants must be either first class or second class graduates. Counsel reinforced his contention by reference to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts holding that matters covered by statutory rules could not be altered by administrative instructions