ORDER :

1. Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Sharma (petitioner no.1) and Shri Praveen Singh (petitioner no.2), in person; Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the High Court and Shri Arimardan Singh Rajput, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the High Court, to moderate and revise the marks awarded to the petitioners at the scale of average marks awarded by the two Boards constituted for the purpose of conducting the interviews at the U.P.H.J.S. 2016 Examination. Further direction has been sought to thereafter consider the petitioners for appointment on the post of Additional District Judge.

3. First, it may be noted, the petitioners are practising Advocates. They have chosen to pursue the writ proceedings, in person. Yet, they have filed numerous pleadings. Many of those are repetitive and not on the format prevalent, here. Therefore, at the beginning of the hearing itself, we sought a clarification (from both the petitioners), as to the documents and affidavits they seek to rely. It was then stated by the petitioners, they would be pressing the Writ Petition as supported by the documents and affidavit appended thereto as also the Ist Supplementary Affidavit dated 23.9.2020, running into 253 pages, the IInd Supplementary Affidavit dated 4.12.2021, running into 26 pages, and the Rejoinder Affidavit dated 14.3.2022, running into 25 pages. Of other affidavits, they specifically stated, such documents came to be filed erroneously. No reliance may be placed on them.

4. On 10.05.2016, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) advertised the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service 2016 Examination to fill up 72 vacancies in all. 37 of those vacancies fell under the Unreserved category; 15 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste category; 19 vacancies were reserved for Other Backward Classes and, 1 vacancy was reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners claiming to be practising advocates, applied for direct recruitment. Being successful at the Preliminary Examination, they wrote the Written Examination, on 11.11.2016. They were again declared successful, vide result declared on 24.3.2017. In all, 61 candidates were invited for the Interview, originally scheduled to be held on 22.04.2017 and 23.04.2017. However, the Interview was rescheduled for 29.04.2017 and 30.04.2017. The reason disclosed to the petitioners was non-availability of the Chairman of Selection & Appointment Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). Two Boards were constituted to conduct the interviews, over two days. The petitioners contend, they along with 29-30 others were interviewed by Board ‘A’ whereas another Board ‘B’ was also constituted. It interviewed the remaining candidates. It is the principal grievance of the petitioners that the two Boards did not observe any symmetry in award of marks such that all candidates who appeared before Board ‘B’ were awarded 80 marks, being the pass marks required to qualify the Interview test, whereas candidates who appeared before Board ‘A’ were generally awarded less than 80 marks. To the extent the petitioners were awarded 60 marks by Board ‘A’, they pray for moderation/scaling of those marks awarded to them. The petitioners further claim malice. They would assert that the interview originally scheduled for 22.04.2017 and 23.04.2017 was purposely postponed accommodating 14 ineligible candidates. Twelve out of those fourteen candidates were judicial officers who had not completed seven years of continuous practice, before applying for the selection. Remaining two were overaged advocates. Only to cause undue benefit to the 14 ineligible candidates, the interview was postponed. Of those, the two advocates were eventually declared successful. They are respondent nos. 4 & 5.