Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The petitioner, an Advocate who claims to belong to OBC category, and practising in the Judgeship of Faizabad District, has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the result of U.P. Higher Judicial Services Examination, 2009 (in short U.P.H.J.S. Examination, 2009) as well as the relevant provisions contained in Appendix G of the U.P. Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975 (in short the HJS Rules) providing 50% cut off marks in written test as condition precedent to make a candidate eligible to appear for interview.

2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the result of U.P. H.J.S. main examination 2009 declared by the respondent No. 5 on 6.12.2009, contained in Annexure 3.

2. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Appendix “G” of U.P.H.J.S. Rule 1975 which provides a 50% compulsory cut off mark for the candidates of every category.

3. Issue a writ order are direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 5 to make a fresh list of reserved category candidates lowering the cut off mark in favour of reserved category candidates.

4. Issue any other writ, order or direction which may be found justified by this Hon’ble Court in view of the circumstances of the case.

5. Award the cost of petition.”

3. The U.P.H.J.S., Examination, 2009 was advertised on 15.4.2009 inviting applications from eligible candidates with continuous practice of 7 years at Bar. After written test, result was declared on 6.12.2009. According to it, 69 candidates succeeded. The copy of impugned select list of the written examination has been attached as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the aforesaid select list, interview was scheduled and held between 20th and 23rd December, 2010 and admittedly, after approval from the “Full Court”, the final select list was released on 9.1.2009. In pursuance thereof, the selectees joined in January, 2010. It is further admitted that fresh selection of U.P.H.J.S. Was held in 2012, select list has been approved by the Full Court of High Court and successful candidates are likely to join very soon.

4. The impugned provision as contained in Appendix-G of the Rules, providing 50% cut off mark across the categories, is reproduced as under:

“Paper No. 6: Interview

The interview will be of 100 marks—The suitability of the candidate for employment in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service will be tested with reference to his merit giving due regard to his ability, character, personality and physique.

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 interview shall be in a thorough and Scientific manner and shall take anything between 25 and 30 minutes for each candidates.

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.”

5. According to the petitioner, who appeared in person before this Court, the fixing of cut off marks is unreasonable and unconstitutional so far as the candidates belonging to OBC category are concerned. The respondents should have reduced the cut off marks for reserved category to enable maximum candidates, to participate in the interview. Further argument is that only 10 to 12 candidates succeeded for interview of all reserved categories against the existing vacancies of 40. He further submits that in 2007, 41 vacancies out of 82 vacancies were filled up from reserved category. It is stated that Selection Committee has to take into account the professional ability, character and personality test, as well as health. Hence, cut off marks of reserved category should be lowered down. Strict compliance of cut off m