JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - These three writ petitions raised similar questions of facts and law. The cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. While the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 702 of 1982 is an employee of the High Court, the petitioners in the other two cases, O.J.C. No. 1516 of 1982 and O.J.C. No. 1780 of 1982 are practising lawyers. In all the writ petitions the State of Orissa represented by the Secretary to Government, Law Department and the Orissa Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') have been impleaded as opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively. The other opposite parties are the candidates selected for appointment to the posts under the Orissa Judicial Service Class II. All the three petitioners submitted their applications in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Commission on 5-12-1979 inviting applications for the Orissa Judicial Service Competitive Examination for the year 1979-80. It is relevant to mention here that the selection of candidates for appointment to the Orissa Judicial Service is governed under the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The applications of the petitioners having been found to be in order they were permitted to take the written examination conducted by the Commission. Thereafter, the petitioners received intimations from the Commission to appear at the viva voce test which was held between 15-9-1980 to 22-9-1980. They appeared at the said test. The merit list of candidates for the Orissa Judicial Service was published under the signature of the Secretary to the Commission on 15-10-1980. The names of the petitioners did not find place in the said list. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that though they have secured higher marks in the aggregate, taking into account the marks in the written test and the viva voce test, than some of the candidates selected, they have not been included in the merit list published by the Commission. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that though they have secured higher marks in the aggregate, taking into account the marks in the written test and the viva voce test, than some of the candidates selected, they have not been included in the merit list published by the Commission. Relying on different provisions under the rules the petitioners contend that since they secured more than the qualifying percentage of marks, 30% of the total marks in all the papers in the written examination and were called to appear at the viva voce test their names were bound to be included in the merit list and assigned appropriate position therein on the basis of the aggregate of the marks in the written test and the viva voce test. On these submissions they seek to impeach the merit list of candidates published by the Commission and pray for issue of writ of mandamus to opposite parties 1 and 2 to appoint them to the Orissa Judicial Service or in the alternative to quash the merit list and pass appropriate order in the case. 2. the State Government in its return has stated that it is not in a position to state in detail the manner and procedure for selection of candidates in the absence of records which are available only with the Commission. The State Govt. further states that the list of 30 candidates selected by the Commission was received on 24-10-1980 along with the statement of the Commission that the list was prepared in accordance with the rule 18 of the Rules. The State Government made appointments from time to time from the list so sent by the Commission. The main counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No. 2, the Orissa Public Service Commission. While admitting most of the averments relating to factual aspects in the writ petitions the Commission has explained that the names of the petitioners were not included in the merit list published by the Commission since they tailed to secure 30% of marks in the viva voce test. The Commission farther states that the Judge of this Court who was present during the viva voce test advised the Commission that candidates who fail to secure 30% in the viva voce test should not be considered fit for appointment. The Commission farther states that the Judge of this Court who was present during the viva voce test advised the Commission that candidates who fail to secure 30% in the viva voce test should not be considered fit for appointment. This advice was accepted by the Commission and the list of suitable candidates was prepared accordingly under rule 18 of the Rules and forwarded to the State Government. It is relevant to mention here that the total marks in the written test was 900 and that in the viva voce test was 200. Therefore, those candidates who secured less than 60 out of 200 in the viva voce test were not considered for inclusion in the list of suitable candidates, irrespective of the marks secured by them in the written test. Judged by this standard the petitioners failed to qualify for inclusion in the merit list. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners under the rules the Commission is not entitled to lay down a minimum percentage of marks in the viva voce test and hence the entire selection is vitiated. They further contend that all candidates who secured the minimum qualifying marks or more (30%) in the written test and appeared in the viva voce test are entitled to be considered for inclusion in the merit list on the basis of the total marks secured by them in the said two tests. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, contends, on provisions of the rules that it is open to the Commission to prescribe a minimum percentage of marks to be secured at the viva voce test in order to make a candidate eligible to be considered for being included in the merit list. It is his further contention that the Judge of the High Court on whom is cast the duty to advise the Commission regarding 'fitness' of a candidate was fully competent to tender the advice as in the present case and the Commission rightly accepted the said advice. 4. In view of the pleadings and the contention raised, the case turns on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the rules. It would therefore be helpful to quote the material provisions of the Rules before proceeding further :- "16. 4. In view of the pleadings and the contention raised, the case turns on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the rules. It would therefore be helpful to quote the material provisions of the Rules before proceeding further :- "16. Qualifying marks and viva voce test - The Commission shall summon for the viva voce test all candidates who have secured at the written examination not less than the minimum qualifying marks obtained in all subjects taken together, which shall be the thirty per cent of the total marks in all the papers : Provided that Government may after consultation with the High Court and Commission fix higher qualifying marks in any or all of the subjects in the written examination in respect of any particular recruitment. 17. Representative of the High Court at the viva voce test - The Chief Justice or any of the other Judges of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice shall represent the High Court and be present at the viva voce test and advise the Commission on the fitness of candidates at the viva voce test from the point of view of their possession of the special qualities required in the Judicial Service, but shall not be responsible for selection of candidates. 18. Arrangement of names of candidates in order of merit by the Commission - The marks obtained at the viva voce test shall be added to the marks obtained in the written examination. The names of candidates will then be arranged by the Commission in order of merit. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the order shall be determined in accordance with the marks secured at the written examination. Should the marks secured at the written examination of the candidates concerned be also equal, then the order shall be decided in accordance with the total number of marks obtained in the optional papers". 5. Should the marks secured at the written examination of the candidates concerned be also equal, then the order shall be decided in accordance with the total number of marks obtained in the optional papers". 5. On perusal of the Rules quoted above, the following points emerge:- (a) The Commission shall summon for the viva voce test all candidates who have secured at the written examination not less than 30% of the total marks in all the papers (vide Rule 16); (b) The Chief Justice or any of the other Judges of the High, Court nominated by the Chief Justice shall represent the High Court and be present at the viva voce test and advise the Commission on the fitness of the candidates at the viva voce test from the point of view of their possession of the special qualities required in the Judicial Service, but shall not be responsible for selection of candidates (vide Rule 17). (c) The marks obtained at the viva voce test shall be added to the marks obtained in the written examination. The names of candidates will then be arranged by the Commission in order of merit (vide Rule 18). In the present cases, as stated earlier, the Judge representing the High Court advised the Commission that candidates securing less than 30% of marks in the viva voce test should not be considered fit for selection and the Commission accepted such advice. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that reading Rules 16, 17 and 18 together it is clear that all the candidates appearing at the viva voce test must be considered for selection on the basis of the aggregate marks secured in the written and viva voce tests notwithstanding whether they are found fit by the Judge of the High Court present at the viva voce tests. They seek to draw support from the provision in Rule 17 that the role of the Judge is only to advice the Commission on the fitness of candidates appearing in the viva voce test but he shall not be responsible for selection of candidates. In other words, a candidate who is not found fit by the Judge would still be entitled to be selected by Commission if he secures a sufficiently high position on the basis of the aggregate marks in the two tests. 6. The contentions need careful consideration. In other words, a candidate who is not found fit by the Judge would still be entitled to be selected by Commission if he secures a sufficiently high position on the basis of the aggregate marks in the two tests. 6. The contentions need careful consideration. The position is well settled that while interpreting different provisions of a statute or statutory rules every attempt is to be made by the Court to give a meaning to the material provisions of the Rules and an interpretation which would render any part of the rule nugatory or superfluous is to be avoided. In order to achieve this purpose, if necessary, the rules are to be interpreted giving a harmonious construction. If we examine the rules keeping in view the above principles the position is manifest that rule 17 which casts the duty on the Judge of the High Court present at the viva voce test to advice the Commission regarding fitness of candidates appearing at the test has a vital role to play in the matter of selection. The process of selection of candidates to man posts in public service, particularly in Judicial Service, is an important and complex one. It cannot be over emphasised that for proper and effective functioning of the Judiciary it is very important that, competent persons should be selected. The written and viva voce tests are intended to assist the Commission in discharging its duty in this regard and to eliminate candidates who are unfit for the job. A Judge of the High Court is presumed to have sufficient experience of the working of the Judiciary, particularly the Subordinate Judiciary and in the circumstances, is the most competent person to judge the fitness of the candidates to hold judicial posts. Keeping all these materials in view and reading Rules 16, 17, and 18 together a fair and proper interpretation would be that from out of the candidates who appear at the viva voce test those who are found to befit by the 'Commission on the advice of the Judge of the High Court present at the interview are entitled to be considered for being included in the list prepared under Rule 18. If the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted Rule 17 will be rendered superfluous. If the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted Rule 17 will be rendered superfluous. It was urged by the learned counsel that under the said rule the only duty to be discharged by the Judge is to indicate to the Commission the criteria it should bear in mind while judging the fitness of the candidates appearing at the interview. If this was the real intention the presence of the Judge at the interview was not necessary. Advice regarding the criteria could be given by sending a letter or by meeting the members of the Commission separately before the viva voce test. The presence of the Judge is required to enable him to judge the performance of the candidates and to advise about their fitness. If the Judge, acting as an expert, advised that a minimum qualifying mark should be prescribed in the viva voce test for judging fitness of the candidates and the Commission accepted the advice and followed it uniformly in all cases there was no flaw in the procedure. It is not in controversy that holding written and viva voce tests and prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the former in order to screen the applicants are well recognised methods for selection of candidates to public service. It is not the contention of the petitioners that 30% as minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test is grossly high or arbitrary. 7. A number of decisions, namely, A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others AIR 1971 S.C. 2303 , State of Karnataka and another v. M. Farida and others AIR 1976 S.C. 2482 , Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and others AIR 1981 S.C. 1777 , Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujid Sehravardi and others AIR 1981 S.C. 487 , A. Janardhana v. Union of India and others AIR 1983 S.C. 769 , Javid Rasool Bhat and others v. State of Jammu Kashmir and others AIR 1984 S.C. 873 , Jayant Kumar Chavhan v. Public Service Commission, M.P., Indore and another 1979 (1) S.L.R. 316 and Jaisingh D. Suryavanshi v. Public Service Commission, M.P. 1979 (2) S.L.R. 523, were cited before us by the learned counsel for the parties. Most of these decisions deal with points like advisability of having viva voce test for selection of candidates for public service; reasonable percentage of marks that should be allotted for viva voce test; the manner of allotting marks, whether a lump total or under different criteria in the test; importance of personality test in selection. The principles that emerge from these decisions can be shortly stated thus: There can be no universal rule that viva voce test is not desirable for selection of candidates to public service. It depends on the concerned recruitment rules. Viva voce tests have come to be accepted as a recognised method of selection in addition to the written test but the importance to be attached to or the total marks to be allotted in these tests would again depend on the provisions of the rules or in absence of any such rule on the decision to be taken by the Commission or the authority vested with the duty of selection. The basic principle to be kept in mind in matters of selection is that the intention is to select the most promising candidates. The method and manner of selection would depend on various circumstances like, the service to which selection is being made, the authority vested with the duty of selection, the expert who attends the interview, the experience and back-grounds of candidates under consideration and others. As already noticed the process of selection to the Judicial Service is a difficult one. It is neither desirable nor proper that any hard and fast rule should be set out regarding the manner of selection for such service. The matter should be left to the discretion of the Commission, an expert body in the field, which is to act subject to the limits set out in the rules. In these circumstances it is not necessary to discuss in detail the decisions referred to above. 8. As already noticed, the principal question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Judge of the High Court who represented the Court at the viva voce test had the authority to advise the Commission that candidates who fail to secure 30% marks in the viva voce test should not be considered fit for selection and if the Commission could accept such advice. The only decision which deals with this question is the case of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and others v. Union of India and others AIR 1984 S.C. 541 . In the said case the selection for the post of Agricultural Scientist under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (I.C.A.R. for short) was assailed on the ground that the Recruitment Board had no authority to prescribe minimum qualifying marks, 40 out of 100, in the viva voce test. On interpretation of the rules framed by the I.C.A.R. the Court held that according to the rules final merit list was to be drawn according to the aggregate of marks in written test plus viva voce examination and there was no power in the Board to prescribe additional qualification, i.e. minimum 40 marks for being qualified in the viva voce test. At a first look the decision appears to be supporting the contention of the petitioner. In paragraph 44 of the judgment where this aspect has been considered the Court has made the following observations :- "On a combined reading of Rules 13 and 14, two things emerge. It is open to to the Board to prescribe minimum marks which the candidates must obtain at the written test before becoming eligible for, viva voce test. After the candidate obtains minimum marks or more at the written test and he becomes eligible for being called for viva Voce test, ha has to appear at the viva voce test. Neither R. 13 nor R. 14 nor any other rule enables the ASRB to prescribe minimum qualifying marks to be obtained by the candidate at the viva voce test. On the contrary, the language of Rule 14 clearly negatives any such power in the ASRB when it provides that after the written test if the candidate has obtained minimum marks, he is eligible for being called for viva voce test and the final merit list would be drawn up according to the aggregate of marks obtained by the candidate in written test plus viva voce examination. The additional qualification which ASRB prescribed to itself namely, that the candidate must have a further qualification of obtaining minimum marks in the viva voce test does not find place in Rs. 13 and 14, it amounts virtually to a modification of the Rules. By necessary inference there was no such power in the ASRB to add to the required qualifications. 13 and 14, it amounts virtually to a modification of the Rules. By necessary inference there was no such power in the ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reasons that such deviation from the Rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. It however does not appear in the facts of the case before us that because of an allocation of 100 marks for viva voce test, the result has been unduly affected. We say so for want of adequate material on the record. In this background we are not inclined to hold that 100 marks for viva voce test was unduly high compared to 600 marks allocated for the written test. But the ASRB in prescribing minimum 40 marks for being qualified for viva voce test contravened Rule 14 inasmuch as there was no such power in the ASRB to prescribe this additional qualification, and this prescription of an impermissible additional qualification has a direct impact on the merit list because the merit list was to be prepared according to the aggregate marks obtained by the candidate at written test plus viva voce test. Once an additional qualification of obtaining minimum marks at the viva voce test is adhered to, a candidate who may figure high-up in the merit list was likely to be rejected on the ground that he has not obtained minimum qualifying marks at viva voce test." The case before the Supreme Court is distinguishable from the present case. There was no rule pari materia to Rule 17 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules empowering the Judge of the High Court to advise the Commission regarding fitness of candidates at the viva voce test, from the point of view of their possession of the special quality required in the Judicial Service. The recruitment was to the post of scientist and the candidates were expected to be persons with considerable experience in the field and not raw graduates or junior legal practitioners as in the present case. In selection of Scientists viva voce examination played a relatively minor role, the stress being on the work performed by the candidate in the field of his speciality and the experience gathered by him. In selection of Scientists viva voce examination played a relatively minor role, the stress being on the work performed by the candidate in the field of his speciality and the experience gathered by him. Further the Supreme Court has not laid down a universal rule that where ever the recruitment rules do not expressly provide for prescribing a minimum percentage of marks in the viva voce examination the recruiting authority has no such power. Considering the relevant aspects of the matter discussed in the foregoing paragraphs it is our considered view that Rule 17 empowers the Judge of the High Court present at the viva voce test to tender the advice, as was done in the present case laying down a minimum qualifying marks to be secured by the candidate at the test to be eligible for consideration on merits. 9. In view of the discussions aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Commission on the advice of the Judge of the High Court prescribing minimum qualifying marks at the viva voce test was neither contrary to the rules nor suffered from any other legal flaw and therefore the selection of candidate at the said test was not vitiated on that ground. 10. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order for costs. R.C. Patnaik, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed