Judgment :- Thomas, J. Appellant was one of the applicants when the Kerala High Court invited applications for selection of suitable candidates from practising advocates for direct recruitment to the posts of District and Sessions Judge. As he was excluded from the short-list prepared by the High Court for viva voce, he filed an Original Petition for various reliefs. But learned Single Judge before whom it came has dismissed it at the threshold itself. Appellant has, therefore, filed this Writ Appeal. 2. Applications were invited from those advocates who have already put in seven years of practice. Appellant was enrolled as an advocate on 11-12-1983. According to him, he practised as an advocate till 17-4-90 and then he joined the F.A.C.T. Ltd., Alwaye, as a Law Officer. But he resigned the post on 15-2-1992 and resumed the practice of law. The duration of his practice as an advocate was 9 years and one month as on the date of his application. When he was not called by the High Court for the oral interview, he made enquiries and came to know that he was one of the applicants excluded from the interview as the High Court had short listed the candidates for oral interview. In the Original Petition he prayed for a direction compelling the High Court to interview the appellant also. 3. Two contentions were mainly advanced by the appellant. First is that appellant had already put in more than 10 years' practice, if the period during which he worked as Law Officer of FACT is also reckoned for Bar experience. Second is that since he had acquired the minimum qualification of seven years of legal practice at any rate, he is entitled to be called for the interview. 4. The Judges of the Kerala High Court have formulated the norms and procedure to be followed in the matter of selection of candidates for appointment as District and Sessions Judges through direct recruitment from the Bar. The task of selecting the suitable candidates has been entrusted to a Committee consisting of five senior most judges of the High Court including the Chief Justice. As per the approved procedure, all the applications are to be tabulated by the Registrar of the High Court who shall submit it to the Committee. After rejecting defective applications the remaining valid applications would be taken up for consideration. As per the approved procedure, all the applications are to be tabulated by the Registrar of the High Court who shall submit it to the Committee. After rejecting defective applications the remaining valid applications would be taken up for consideration. The Chief Justice would then call for a report about each candidate (in a format prescribed) from such of those judicial Officers or Officer before whom the candidate would have appeared as may be decided by the Committee. 5. A reading of the file relating to the erstwhile selection reveals that there were 404 applications out of which 29 applications were rejected as defective, and there were 375 valid applications. The Committee felt that the number of applicants was "disproportionately heavy vis-a-vis the number of posts to be filled up". The Committee then noted that it would be very tedious and time consuming exercise to interview all those 375 applicants and hence decided to short-list the applicants on some rational and reasonable basis. After considering different options the Committee decided to prepare a short list of candidates having "Bar experience for ten years and more." 6. Viva-voce or oral interview is intended in the selection process "for deciding the candidates" general knowledge, grasp of general principles of law, familiarity with substantive and procedural law, both civil and criminal, analytical ability, quickness of grasp, power of expression, capacity for objective assessment and all other relevant factors regarding suitability for appointment to the cadre of District Judges". As per the procedure laid down those candidates who fail to secure a minimum of 60% marks (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates it is 50%) in the oral interview would not be treated as suitable for appointment. As the procedure does not contemplate any written test for recruitment to the cadre of District Judges, oral interview is the only test that could be resorted to for making the selection. Oral examination or viva voce, without a written test, has been approved to be the appropriate method of selecting candidates for such high posts. (Vide Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1981 SC 1777). 7. Oral examination in such circumstances is prone to consume quite a good amount of time depending on the number of candidates 'to be interviewed. (Vide Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1981 SC 1777). 7. Oral examination in such circumstances is prone to consume quite a good amount of time depending on the number of candidates 'to be interviewed. But if the number of applicants is very high the time to be taken for the interview would stretch to unmanageable limits and the interview might tend to became casual and sloppy. In order to avert such a consequence one of the approved methods is to short-list the applicants on some rational basis bearing in mind that the purpose of the interview is to select the best among the applicants. 8. It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana ((1985) 4 SCC 417) that "it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if such a large unmanageable number of over 1300 candidates are to be interviewed. The interviews would then tend to be casual, superficial and sloppy and the assessment made at such interviews would not correctly reflect the true measure of the personality of the candidate". 9. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court approved the method of short-listing the candidates when the eligible applicants exceeded the limit of manageability. That was a case in which Madhya Pradesh Government invited applications for the post of presiding officers of Labour Courts when nine posts were to be filled up. Public Service Copimission, which was invested with the power of selection, took a decision to call only 71 applicants for interview "although 188 applicants were eligible as per requirement of the advertisement". Only those candidates who had completed seven and a half years of practice were called for interview although the minimum requirement was a practice of live years. That action of the Public Service Commission was challenged before the High Court. The challenge was sustained by the High Court, but the Supreme Court reversed the finding of the High Court and upheld the action adopted by the Public Service Commission. The decision is reported in M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnitkumar Potdar ((1994) 6 SCC 293). That action of the Public Service Commission was challenged before the High Court. The challenge was sustained by the High Court, but the Supreme Court reversed the finding of the High Court and upheld the action adopted by the Public Service Commission. The decision is reported in M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnitkumar Potdar ((1994) 6 SCC 293). The following observations in the said decision are useful in this case: "Where the selection is to be made purely on the basis of interview, if the applications for such posts are enormous in number with reference to the number of posts available to be filled up, then the Commission or the Selection Board has no option but to short-list such applicants on some rational and reasonable basis. Where selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interviews/ viva voce tests must be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the perspnality of the candidate." In fact, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was also borne in mind by the Committee for short-listing the candidates for the purpose of conducting viva-voce. 10. The appellant has no case that he would fall within the range fixed by the Committee for short-listing the candidates. His present contention that his service as a Law Officer in the F. A.C.T. should also have been counted as Bar experience cannot be accepted. Such a service is not a Bar service. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this Writ Appeal.