By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the minimum marks fixed by the Selection Committee constituted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for filling up the vacancies in U.P. Higher Judicial Service i.e. 50 percent in the written examination for being called for interview for all category of candidates including the candidates of reserved category.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that 160 vacancies of Higher Judicial Officers were advertised under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called the “Rules, 1975”). Out of the said vacancies, 84 vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment. In view of the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules, 1975, the Selection Committee fixed the bench mark of 50 percent in the written examination for the candidates to be called for interview for all categories of candidates. The said bench mark is under challenge.

3. Sri Prabha Shanker Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, it was mandatory on the part of the High Court/Selection Committee to fix a lower bench mark for the reserved category candidates and since it has failed to do so, the selection process stood vitiated.

4. In support of his submissions, Shri Pandey, has submitted that petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class and had there been a different benchmark prescribing some lower marks than 50 percent, he could have been selected. He has further submitted that in other States like, Uttaranchal, Punjab and Haryana 40 per cent marks have been fixed as bench mark for reserved category candidates, while 50 per cent for general category candidates. The same criteria ought to have been adopted by the respondents.

5. On the other hand Shri Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition contending that Article 16 of the Constitution is merely an enabling provision and fixing the bench mark falls within the exclusive domain of the employer/State authorities. In order to maintain the efficiency, in administration it is always open to the authority concerned to fix the bench mark for all category of candidates in view of the provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In exercise of power under Rule 18 of the Rules, 1975, the Selection Committee prepared a syllabus for the purpose of recruitment prescribing 5 papers out of which 1st paper was of General Knowledge; 2nd paper of Language; 3rd paper of Substantive Law; 4th paper of Law (Procedure and Evidence) and 5th paper for (Penal, Revenue and local laws). Each paper carried 200 marks. It further provided that Interview will be of 100 marks. It contained the following note :

“The cut off marks in the written examination shall be 50 per cent in respect of all categories and candidates securing the marks above the cut off marks shall only be called for the interview.”

The marks obtained in the interview will be added to the marks obtained in the written papers and the candidates’ place will depend on the aggregate of both”.

8. Petitioner who appeared in the examination could secure 448 marks out of 1000 in 5 papers as is evident from the mark sheet produced by Shri Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel for the respondents in the Court. As he secured less than 50 per cent marks in aggregate, he was not called for interview.

9. The question does arise, as to whether the State is bound to provide a different bench mark providing for lower percentage of marks for reserved category candidates.

10. In C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India and others, AIR 1968 SC 507, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of Articles 14, 15 and 335 of the Constitution and held that Clause (4) to Article 16 is an enabl