1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the same notification issued by the Government, appointing 17 District Judges (Entry Level) on various grounds and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. This is another round of writ petitions filed, of course, now challenging the Government Order issued under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, by the Government in consultation with the High Court.

3. Originally, in a batch of writ petitions, the notification issued by the Government on 01.07.2010, calling for applications for the posts of District Judges (Entry Level) in respect of 17 vacancies was challenged on various grounds including that, the distribution of 17 vacancies against each category does not include the disabled persons, since as per Section 33 read with Section 2(k) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, they are entitled for 3% reservation; that for short-listing the candidates for viva-voce examination, the manner in which the length of Bar experience was to be taken into consideration was not clearly explained; that the viva-voce marks should not exceed 12.5% as per the judgment of the Supreme Court; that the person already in service of the Union or State is disqualified from applying unless he has seven years of experience as Advocate or Pleader, with the result the Assistant Public Prosecutors Grade I and Grade II, who were employed by the State Government drawing salary from the Government exchequer are not eligible, apart from other grounds. The batch of writ petitions was dismissed by the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court on 26.08.2010 reported in K.Appadurai vs. Secretary to Government, Public (Special A) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-9 and another (2010 (5) CTC 1).

4. Theselection process for the said posts as per the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 consisted of the written examination and viva-voce. The maximum marks allotted for written examination and viva-voce as per the Rules are 75% and 25% respectively and total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and viva-voce are taken together subject to the rule of reservation for appointment. Accordingly, the written examinations were conducted by the High Court on 30.10.2010, in which 2047 candidates have appeared, from whom a list of candidates for viva-voce was short listed. Considering the number of vacancies to be filled up and following the distribution pattern as per the notification, from among the merit list of the candidates prepared based on the marks secured in the written examination, 103 candidates were short listed by taking into consideration the rule of reservation and merit. Thereafter, viva-voce was conducted by the Six Senior Most Judges of this Court, including the Hon’ble the Chief Justice between 11.11.2010 and 13.11.2010 and based on the performance in the viva-voce along with the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination, a select list was drawn and sent to the Government by the High Court on 13.11.2010.

5. It was, at that stage, another batch of writ petitions came to be filed in W.P.Nos.25778 of 2010 etc., by the persons whose names did not find a place in the short-list mainly on the ground that while short-listing, in addition to the marks obtained in the written examination, weightage marks should have been given for the length of practice of the candidates in the Bar; that while in respect of 12 posts meant for men candidates 92 men candidates have been short-listed and on the other hand in respect of 5 vacancies reserved for women candidates, only 11 were short-listed and therefore, the zone of consideration was not arrived at in a proper proportion, and that the selection process should not have been conducted by the High Court, and that when an appl