ORDER

1. The case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled as an Advocate with the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council in the year 2017. The respondent No.1 called for applications for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge Junior Division (Entry Level) under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. The petitioner applied for the same. He passed the preliminary exam as well as the final exam. He was called for the interview. He was not selected. He was expected to score a minimum of 20 out of 50 allotted marks for the interview. Since he had not scored the minimum of marks in the interview, he was not eligible to be selected. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed seeking to set aside the impugned interview/selection procedure, which mandates 20 marks to be obtained out of the maximum of 50 marks; to set aside Clause 6 of the main examination form wherein information about relatives in the judiciary is called for and other consequential reliefs.

2. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel submits that the mandate to procure a minimum of 20 out of 50 marks is erroneous. That once the candidate has cleared the preliminary and the final examination and a merit list has been prepared, the selection ought to be made on the basis of that select list. That the procurement of the minimum marks is wholly uncalled for. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11, with reference to paras 17 and 18. It is his further contention that Clause 6 of the application form for the main exam calls for particulars with regard to family members, who are in the profession. That the same would affect the candidate at the time of interview. Furthermore, whether the relative of the candidate is practising or is a Judge or otherwise, is of no concern so far as judging his merit is concerned.

3. Heard learned senior counsel.

4. The minimum marks to be obtained for the interview is governed by the advertisement published on 21.12.2021 vide Annexure P-1, wherein for the clause of interview it is narrated that the maximum marks to be obtained is 50 marks, out of which the candidate should obtain a minimum of 40% of the same, namely, 20 marks out of 50 marks for the interview. The same reads as follows :--

ß3- lk{kkRdkj

,d& lk{kkRdkj & eq[; ijh{kk esa lQy vkosndksa dks vuqØekad ds Øe ls lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;k tk;sxkA lk{kkRdkj ds fy, 50 vad fuèkkZfjr gSaA vkosndksa dks vafre :i ls p;fur gksus ds fy, lk{kkRdkj esa U;wure 40 izfr'kr vad vFkkZr~ 20 vad izkIr djuk vfuok;Z gSA^^

Therefore, the candidates were aware of the existence of such a clause.

5. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra (supra), relied upon by the learned senior counsel is concerned, with reference to paras 17 and 18, it is narrated therein, while relying on the report of Hon'ble Justice Shetty Commission with regard to fixing of cut-off marks for the purposes of the viva voce test. On considering the same, in para-18, it was held that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the viva voce test had to be added on to the marks obtained in the written test and then the merit list has to be prepared.

6. Having considered the said judgment, we are of the view that the same would not apply to the facts of this case. The facts involved therein were to the extent that after the written exam was conducted for recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, the marks obtained in the written test were not disclosed. At that stage, the selection committee met and resolved that it was desirable to prescribe minimum marks for viva voce. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Full Court. The Full Court resolved that the minimum qualifying marks in viva voce will be 55% for General candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Thereafter, the candidates