Shivaraj Patil, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is yet another writ petition relating to selection to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in which the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in respect of the supplemental Notification issued in Memorandum No. 10163/APD-CJ. B/96, dated 24. 1997. and quash paragraph No.8 of the Notification so far it relates to fixing of the ratio of 1:3 for viva voce examination, and consequently direct the respondent to publish the results of the written examination and call for viva voce examination in the ratio of 1:6 as laid down in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules, 1995.

3. The petitioner states that he enrolled himself as an Advocate in the year 1985 and since then he has been practising at Melur in the Courts of District Munsif as well as Judicial Magistrate; the first respondent invited applications from eligible candidates; earlier the interview cards were issued to candidates based on the marks obtained by them is the B.L. degree, calling them for viva voce examination; but in view of the Writ Petition Nos.2447,2467/97 etc. filed in this Court, and orders passed in those writ petitions, written examinations were to be held. Accordingly written examinations were held. But the petitioner did not received any call letter to appear for viva voce test.

4. The petitioner seriously challenges the fixing of the ratio as 1:3 to call the candidates for viva voce test, on the ground that the rules do not provide for fixing up the ratio 1:3; on the other hand the ratio fixed in the rules is 1:6 where selection was to be made without written examination; and that the same criteria could be adopted; had it been followed by the first respondent, the petitioner had chance to get call letter for viva voce test. Under the circumstances the writ petition is filed.

5. Respondent has filed counter affidavit resisting the writ petition, giving the details of the notifications issued, number of vacancies, reservations in respect of various categories, number of candidates appearing for the written examinations and passing in the written examination, number of candidates called for interview, and the basis for fixing the ration of 1:3 in calling candidate for viva voce test.

6. We do not think it necessary to narrate all the details given in the counter-affidavit as the question that arises for consideration in the light of the contentions raised in the writ petition, and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is limited to one aspect, viz., whether the action of the respondent in calling the candidates for viva voce test fixing the ratio 1:3 can be sustained. However it is appropriate to extract paragraphs 11,12 and 16 of the counter-affidavit, which read:-

"11.1 submit that he belongs to B.C. community. In the case of B.C. males, only the candidates who had secured 217 and above marks in the aggregate and the minimum qualifying marks in each of the subjects were called for the oral test at the ratio of 1:3 (i.e.) the number of candidates called for the interview was three times the number of vacancies to be filled in each group based on the marks obtained in the written examination. Since, the petitioner had not secured the minimum qualifying marks of 35 prescribed for the MBD/DC and B.Cs., in Translation and Law — III the petitioner was not called for the oral test.

12. The averments mentioned in para 4 to 8 of the affidavit are not correct. I submit that the petitioner whose Register Number was 392273 has appeared for the written examination for the recruitment of Civil Judge, and secured marks as follows:

1.Translation 19

2. Law -1 40

3. Law - II 51

4. Law - III 15 Total - 125

"16. I submit that the procedure of selection he has announced in the Notification as follows as per Government instruction issued in l