Judgment :- 1. The petitioner. an Advocate. claiming to be a member of the Scheduled Caste was a candidate for appointment to the post of a District Judge. His name was not recommended by the High Court. He however learnt from the newspapers that others have been selected and no Scheduled Caste was included. Naturally he was sorely disappointed and aggrieved. as he was. filed this writ petition challenging the process of selection and the procedure adopted by the High Court in making the recommendation. 2. Candidates were interviewed by a selection committee consisting of three senior judges of this Court and on the basis of the interview. the petitioner's name was not included in the panel of names prepared by the committee. The report of the committee was accepted by the Full Court on its administrative side and fourteen names arranged in the order of merit were recommended. 3. It is contended by the petitioner. through his counsel that a selection based solely on interview. is not an acceptable or reasonable method of ascertaining the suitability of a candidate for the post and on that basis the whole selection has to fail. Alternatively it is stressed that the rules envisage only a selection of a candidate suitable and not of a candidate most suitable to be appointed. and if the High Court has not found that the petitioner is not suitable. he should have been included in the list. when. by virtue of the reservation principles in favour of Scheduled Caste. he was entitled to preference. Both the points raise no difficulty in view of the several decisions of the Supreme Court and the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. We see no merit in either of these contentions and the writ petition has only to be dismissed. 4. The Constitution. in Art.233 provides that the appointment of persons to be District Judges shall be made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court and a candidate is eligible to be appointed by direct recruitment only if he is recommended by the High Court for appointment. In the appointing process to this post. the Constitution thus assured an impressive procedure of an indispensable requirement of a recommendation by the High Court before an appointment to the post of District Judge was made by direct" recruitment. The High Court was thus a constitutional. In the appointing process to this post. the Constitution thus assured an impressive procedure of an indispensable requirement of a recommendation by the High Court before an appointment to the post of District Judge was made by direct" recruitment. The High Court was thus a constitutional. instrumentality to protect the interests of the Bar. preserve the independence of the judiciary and to prevent possible executive patronage. With the confidence so reposed. the High Court relying on its own ripe experience and resting on its rich traditions. proceeds to prescribe its own procedure in the matter of selection to this post in the higher judicial service. This time. as in previous years. the High Court nominated three senior-most judges of this Court to conduct the selection. They interviewed 125 candidates and eventually proposed a panel of names found suitable for appointment. If the High Court thought that an interview of the members of the Bar who have applied for the post was sufficient. can it be said that the decision was arbitrary and unjust and that a direction should be issued to conduct a written test as well. 5. Out of deference to the contentions advanced. we shall refer to some of the decisions cited. In Chandra Mohan v. State of U. P. (AIR 1966 S. C. 1987). Chief Justice Subba Rao. speaking for a unanimous Court observed thus: "The exercise of the power of appointment by the Governor is conditioned by his consultation with the High Court. that is to say. he can only appoint a person to the post of district judge in consultation with the High Court. The object of consultation is apparent. The High Court is expected to know better than the Governor in regard to the suitability or otherwise of a person. belonging either to the "judicial service" or to the Bar. to be appointed as a district judge. Therefore. a duty is enjoined on the Governor to make the appointment in consultation with a body which is the appropriate authority to give advice to him. xxx xxx xxx These provisions indicate that the duty to consult is so integrated with the exercise of the power that the power can be exercised only in consultation with the person or persons designated therein". 6. xxx xxx xxx These provisions indicate that the duty to consult is so integrated with the exercise of the power that the power can be exercised only in consultation with the person or persons designated therein". 6. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalld Mujib (AIR 1981 S. C. 487) their Lordships were considering the validity of the admission to the Regional Engineering College. Srinagar. In the course of the discussion it was observed thus: "It is therefore not possible to accept the contentions of the petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that selecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral interview in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates. but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits. the oral interview test must. at the present stage. be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression. its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We would. however. like to point out that in the matter of admission of colleges or even in the matter of public employment. the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test. but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and. moreover. great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity. calibre and qualification". 7. These observations were considered by a Division Bench in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1981 S. C. 1777) wherein it was held: "...On the other hand. in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality. interview test may be the only way. subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results. apart from its being an act of cruelty to those persons. There are. of course. many services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results. apart from its being an act of cruelty to those persons. There are. of course. many services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise. and the discerning may in an interview test catch a glimpse of the future personality. In the case of such services. where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise. some weight has to be given. though not much too great weight. to the interview test. There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service. the minimum qualifications prescribed. the age group from which the selection is to be made. the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is matter for research. It is not for Courts to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives". And referring to the observations in Ajay Hdsia's case (AIR 1981 S. C. 487) in so far as they related to public services. it was observed thus: "The observation relating to public employment was per incuriam since the matter did not fall for the consideration of the Court in that case. Nor do we think that the Court intended any wide construction of their observation. As already observed by us the weight to be given to the interview test should depend on the requirement of the service to which recruitment is made. the source-material available for recruitment. the composition of the interview Board and several like factors". 8. In Pandurangam Rao v. State of A. P. (AIR 1975 S. C. 1922) it was held thus:- "A candidate for direct recruitment from the Bar does not become eligible for appointment without the recommendation of the High Court. He becomes eligible only on such recommendation under clause (2) of Art.233. The High Court in the judgment under appeal felt some difficulty in appreciating the meaning of the word "recommended". But the literal meaning given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is quite simple and apposite. It means "suggest as fit for employment". He becomes eligible only on such recommendation under clause (2) of Art.233. The High Court in the judgment under appeal felt some difficulty in appreciating the meaning of the word "recommended". But the literal meaning given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is quite simple and apposite. It means "suggest as fit for employment". In case of appointment from the Bar it is not open to the Government to choose a candidate for appointment until and unless his name is recommended by the High Court". 9. In B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute (AIR 1984 S.C. 363) it was observed thus: "Be that as it may. it is not for the Court to determine who is the superior of the two candidates and who should be selected. It is for the authorities concerned to select from amongst the available candidates. The members of the selection committee as also the members of the Council were eminent persons and they may be presumed to have taken into account all relevant considerations before coming to a conclusion". 10. There may be two views whether interview as the sole test for deciding about the suitability of a candidate for appointment in public service is the best method to be adopted and whether it is not advisable to have a written test as well. 11. In the United Nations Hand Book on Civil Service Laws and Practice,"it says: "the written papers permit an assessment of culture and intellectual competence. The interview permits an assessment of qualities of character which written papers ignore; it attempts to assess the man himself and not his intellectual abilities". 12. Glenn Stahl in his Public Personnel Administration states: "The oral test has long served as a basic selection tool in private employment but has been more slowly accepted in the public field. This conservatism arises out of three considerations: (1) the difficulty of developing valid and reliable oral tests: (2) the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test: and (3) public suspicion of the oral as a channel for the exertion of political influence through the destruction of anonymity. Despite these acknowledged disadvantages. however. orals have been used increasingly in public personnel testing and have become important instruments wherever tests of personal attributes are considered essential. As we have noted no satisfactory written tests have yet been devised for measuring such personal characteristics as initiative. Despite these acknowledged disadvantages. however. orals have been used increasingly in public personnel testing and have become important instruments wherever tests of personal attributes are considered essential. As we have noted no satisfactory written tests have yet been devised for measuring such personal characteristics as initiative. ingenuity and ability to elicit co-operation. many of which are of prime importance. When properly employed. the oral test today deserves a place in the battery used by the technical examiner " 13. In Chitralekha v. State of Mysore (AIR 1964 S. C. 1823). relating to admission to a Medical College. the Supreme Court observed thus: "Orthodox educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in the annual examination. The modern trend of opinion insists upon other additional tests. such as interview. performance in extra-curricular activities. personality test. psychiatric test etc. Obviously we are not in a position to judge which method is preferable or which test is the correct one. If there can be manipulation or dishonesty in allotting marks at interviews. there can equally be manipulation in the matter of awarding marks in the written examinations. In the ultimate analysis. whatever method is adopted its success depends on the moral standards of the members constituting the selection committee and their sense of objectivity and devotion to duty. This criticism is more a reflection on the examiners than on the system itself. The scheme of selection. however perfect it may be on paper. may be abused in practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a ground for quashing it. So long as the order lays down relevant objective criteria and entrusts the business of selection to qualified persons. this Court cannot obviously have any say in the matter". 14. It is not for this Court to decide whether the selection of the members of the Bar to the post of District judges could be made only on the basis of a written examination followed by an interview. The Constitution itself prescribes a minimum qualification of seven years' practice at the Bar. Under the Higher Judicial Service Rules. the candidate shall not have completed 47 years on the first day of July of the year in which applications are invited. The service requires men who are mature. and "intellectually competent". who have "intiation, ingenuity and ability to elicit co-operation". who are endowed with robust commonsense and shrewd judgment and who. Under the Higher Judicial Service Rules. the candidate shall not have completed 47 years on the first day of July of the year in which applications are invited. The service requires men who are mature. and "intellectually competent". who have "intiation, ingenuity and ability to elicit co-operation". who are endowed with robust commonsense and shrewd judgment and who. above all. have "good character". The interview attempts to "assess the man himself" and the members of the selection committee are three seniormost judges of this Court. They are eminent in their field and it has to be presumed that all relevant considerations were taken note of when the selection was made. The petitioner cannot insist that a written examination alone can be the true test for assessing a man's suitability to the post. There may be posts where both written and oral tests are insisted. especially when persons. practically fresh from college are recruited to public services. Tests may not be prescribed at all for certain high posts where the opinion of the constitutional functionary alone counts. When. as in this case. the selection is left to the High Court. to a post in the higher judicial service. this Court cannot hold that the interview held is insufficient for the purpose and that a direction should follow to conduct a written examination as well. The petitioner was interviewed. his suitability was assessed and he was not included in the panel submitted to the Governor. His only right. at this stage is to have his claims considered. When his claim was considered on merits. he can have no further cause in court. 15. The second contention urged that as long as he is not found unsuitable. his name should have been included in the panel in which case. he would have been entitled to the reservation available to Scheduled Castes proceeds on a total misconception of the relevant rules. R.14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules provide the back-bone of reservation to the various posts in the public services of this State. These rules are made expressly applicable to appointments in the Higher Judicial service. R.14 prescribes the basis for the principles or reservation and provides that these principles of reservation shall be followed in respect of the persons included in the ranked list. These rules are made expressly applicable to appointments in the Higher Judicial service. R.14 prescribes the basis for the principles or reservation and provides that these principles of reservation shall be followed in respect of the persons included in the ranked list. R.15 embodies the principle of 'carry forward' and states in R.15(b) as to what should follow if a suitable candidate is not available for selection from the group of communities. classified as "Scheduled Caste". Thus the rules of reservation apply when once a rank list is prepared and appointment is made from that rank list. In the preparation of the rank list. there is no question of a reservation policy being followed. Reservation principles embodied in R.14 to 17 of the K.S.S.R. apply only at the time of appointment and not at the earlier stage of selection. The person ranked higher in the rank list. may however have to forego his rank when a particular vacancy is earmarked for the reserved constituency. When the petitioner was not included in the panel proposed by the High Court. he cannot call in aid a reservation principle to claim appointment. In the assessment made by the High Court. the petitioner could not reach that minimum standard to deserve the inclusion of his name in the panel. If his contention is accepted. the position will be that the High Court may have to include all the names of candidates called for interview in the list to be sent to the Government. In that event. it will only make a mockery of the mandate contained in Art.233. This contention is thus devoid of any merit. 16. There is no infraction of the rights of the petitioner under Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. In fact. the petitioner has no right to be appointed as a District Judge based on his performance at the interview. He cannot ask this court to compel the High Court to recommend him for the post of District Judge. The O.P. has thus no merits and is dismissed. no costs.