Judgment :- 1. The petitioners in these three writ petitions are applicants for the post of Civil Judge for which applications were called for by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by its Notification dated 1-6-1995. That Notifications sets out that applications are invited by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for appointment against eighty two vacancies (approximately) in the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Fist Class) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service to be made by Direct Recruitment under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1995. 2) The aforementioned Cadre and Recruitment Rules in the schedule-in Item-5 prescribe the method of appointment for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class). The method so prescribed is as under:— “By direct recruitment on the basis of written examination and viva-voce Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in accordance with the Rules specified in the annexure to those Rules. Provided that the Government, may in times of exigencies, in consultation with the High Court direct the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to select candidates on the basis of viva-voce examination only”. 3. The Annexure to the Rules sets out the method to be adopted for selecting the persons in the normal course, i.e., in cases where the proviso is not applied. The method so prescribed is by holding Written Examination and thereafter a viva-voce. The maximum marks of vive-voce Examination prescribed under that provision is 60. The candidates who obtained less than the minimum prescribed marks in the Written Examination, are not eligible for appearing in viva-voce examination. 4. In the impugned Notification the procedure for selection is set out in paragraph 8 of the Notification which reads as under:— “Procedure of Section: (1) The selection will be made on the basis of viva voce examination only at which the candidates General Knowledge and the knowledge of law including the State Laws and the procedural laws and Grasp of principles of law and suitability for appointment to the post will be tested. The maximum marks for the viva voce examination will be one hundred marks. The minimum qualifying marks for selection will be 30 for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and 32 for Most Backward Classes/Denotified Communities and 35 for Backward Classes and 40 for open competition. The maximum marks for the viva voce examination will be one hundred marks. The minimum qualifying marks for selection will be 30 for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and 32 for Most Backward Classes/Denotified Communities and 35 for Backward Classes and 40 for open competition. (ii) The selection of candidates for admission to the viva-voce examination will be restricted to the ratio of 1:6 (i.e. six candidates for one vacancy) for open competition as well as for each reservation category on the basis of the overall percentage of the total marks obtained in the law subjects including practicals in the B.L. Degree examination (I, II and III year in the case of 3 year B.L. Degree course and III, IV and V year in the case of 5 years B.L. degree Course”. 5. The qualification required to be possessed by the applicant is set out at paragraph 4 which is a degree in law of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grant and language qualification in Tamil which however is not essential but is required to be acquired if a person not knowing Tamil is selected and appointed. A period of four years is given to such persons to acquire knowledge of Tamil and to pass a prescribed test. The experience to be possessed by the candidate is set out in paragraph 5 which provides that as on the date of the Notification viz., 1-6-1995, the candidate must be a practising Advocate or Pleader and must have so practised for a period of not less than four years as on that date or must be working as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade I, or Grade II and must have so worked for a period of not less than four years as on that date. 6. All the petitioners stated that they possess qualification prescribed both academic and experience at the Bar. 7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners have not been called for viva-voce examination. 6. All the petitioners stated that they possess qualification prescribed both academic and experience at the Bar. 7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners have not been called for viva-voce examination. The petitioners have stated that the reason for their not having been called for the interview is what they regard it as erroneous method adopted by the Public Service Commission of limiting the number of candidates to be called for the interview in the ratio of 1:6 for different categories for which posts have been reserved as also the posts to be filled up by competition. The petitioners have also produced a further Notification by the Public Service Commission in which it has been state d as under:— The details of cut-off level marks of the candidates provisionally admitted to the said viva-voce Examination with reference to paragraph 8(ii) of the Notification dated 1-6-95 given below are based solely on the marks furnished by the candidates:—. Category Overall Percentage of total Marks obtained by candidates in the law subjects General Women OC 52.05 47.10 BC 48.85 43.40 MBC/DC 47.00 All candidates SC 45.55 All candidates ST All candidates All candidates It is also stated in that Notification that the cut-off level marks given above are arrived at based on the overall percentage of the total marks in the Law subjects of all the candidates whose applications were received in the office of the Commission before 27-1995. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the method adopted by the Public Service Commission is illegal in as much as the method is not authorised by the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules. The further submission was that the prescription of 100 marks for viva-voce is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several decisions wherein the Court deprecated excessive marks being assigned for the viva-voce examination. The further submission was that the prescription of 100 marks for viva-voce is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several decisions wherein the Court deprecated excessive marks being assigned for the viva-voce examination. It was also submitted that prescribing the cut-off marks and thereby denying opportunity to the petitioners to appear for the interview, was irrational in as much as the capacity or ability of the persons appointed to the post is not always consistent with the marks obtained, since Colleges and Universities adopt different methods of valuation and even within the Universities, Colleges adopt different systems viz., Semester and Non-Semester systems, which makes it difficult to obtain higher marks at the examination and those marks cannot be a satisfactory basis for comparing relative merits of the candidates. It was, therefore, submitted that every person who has the qualification and the prescribed minimum number of years of experience is entitled to be called for the viva-voce examination and denial of such opportunity to any one is violations of such applicants rights under the Constitution which renders the selection process invalid. 9. The arguments so advanced for the petitioners though superficially attractive are without substance and have to be rejected. The Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, the validity of which has not been questioned by any one of the petitioners, specifically provides that direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, may in times of exigencies, be made if so directed by the Government after consultation with the High Court solely on the basis of the candidates performance at the viva-voce examination. Though recruitment based solely on the performance of viva voce examination is not to be the normal method to be adopted for recruitment, in case of exigencies it is a permissible method. It is not the case of the petitioners that the High Court has not been consulted or the High Court has not agreed to the method adopted for the recruitment. 10. The selection of candidates by the method of viva voce is, therefore, perfectly a legal method and it does not contravene any of the rules. 11. When the viva voce is the sole basis the marks to be assigned necessarily has to be 100 and cannot be anything less. The prescription of 100 marks for the viva-voce examination, in the circumstances, does not contravene any rule. 11. When the viva voce is the sole basis the marks to be assigned necessarily has to be 100 and cannot be anything less. The prescription of 100 marks for the viva-voce examination, in the circumstances, does not contravene any rule. Nor does it contrive the law laid down by the supreme Court in this regard. The Supreme Court, has in cases where the recruitment is by the method of viva-voce alone, held that the assignment of 100 marks for viva voce examination, is valid and legal. 12. The method adopted is not unconstitutional and does not violate any of the petitioners fundamental rights. 13. The argument that the cut-off marks cannot be prescribed, as such cut off marks have not been referred to in the Rules is also not tenable. Where the number of applicants are so numerous as to make it impracticable to interview each and every applicant, it is permissible to adopt a rational method by which the number to be called for the interview is brought down to a manageable number. 14. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that about 4000 persons have applied for 82 posts. Having regard to the large number of applicants a non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory method to screen the applicants must necessarily be adopted to bring down the number to be called for viva voce to a manageable number. The method adopted here is the taking into account the overall percentage of the total marks obtained in the law subjects of all the candidates who had applied, and on the basis of those marks arrive at a cut-off marks. In this process, the applicants who had secured less than the cut off marks are no doubt excluded from further consideration. Such, exclusion, however, does not mean the denial of their right to be considered. That consideration in fact has taken place at the stage where the marks obtained by them are compared to that obtained by those who have in fact been called for the viva voce examination. The more meritorious among the applicants have thus been selected for the purpose of being subjected to the viva voce examination. That consideration in fact has taken place at the stage where the marks obtained by them are compared to that obtained by those who have in fact been called for the viva voce examination. The more meritorious among the applicants have thus been selected for the purpose of being subjected to the viva voce examination. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that limiting the number of persons to be called for interview when the number of applicants for the post are so numerous as to make it impracticable to interview each and every one of them, does not offend the Article 14. 15. In the Notification issued by the Commission at paragraph 8, the manner in which selection has to be made, has been clearly set out. It is specifically stated therein that the selection of candidates for admission to the viva voce examination will be restricted to the ratio of 1:6. Screening the applicants on the basis of the marks obtained at the University law examination, cannot be said to be irrational method or arbitrary one. 16. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the performance at the University Law examination is not always a true index for the persons ability and suitability to the post. The performance at the examinations conducted at the end of the law course certainly gives an indication of the overall general ability of the person and the extent of knowledge acquired in the subject during the period of study. It is with that knowledge that the graduate embarks upon a career in law. It cannot, by any means, be regarded as irrelevant or erroneous method for separating the group who are to be excluded from the viva voce examination from those who are admitted to the viva voce examination. The performance at the Law examination is a readily available measure of performance which can be adopted for this purpose. By the method adopted, no one who does not possess the qualification is given any preference over those who possess the prescribed qualification. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are wide variations in the course content, standards of teaching, and methods and manner of evaluation of performance, among the Universities and Colleges imparting legal education, and therefore, marks secured by candidates from different Colleges, Universities are not comparable. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are wide variations in the course content, standards of teaching, and methods and manner of evaluation of performance, among the Universities and Colleges imparting legal education, and therefore, marks secured by candidates from different Colleges, Universities are not comparable. Even if there be variations on this score, as submitted by counsel, a recruiting agency cannot be said to act arbitrarily or unreasonably if it relies on the fact that the degrees awarded by these institutions are all recognised as being of equal value for the purpose of enrolment at the Bar and proceeds to compare their relative performance at the qualifying examination measured by the percentage of marks obtained at such examination. It is also not practicable for the recruiting authority to conduct an examination of the Universities, their methods adopted of examination or the degree of strictness or liberality on the part of the persons who evaluate the performance of the student at the examinations conducted by such University. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jayant v. Matharashtra Public Service Commission (1986 Labour and Industrial Cases page 429). The Court therein considered the legality of prescription made by the Public Service Commission which prescription was contrary to the recruitment Rule in as much as while the selection Rule prescribed four years practice, the Commission adopted five years practice as the criteria for the applicants who had applied for the posts of Civil Judges. That is not the case here. All those who have put in prescribed minimum number of years of practice have been considered. Having regard to the relatively short number viz., four years experience prescribed for the applicants, adopting their academic performance as the basis for screening, is a relevant and rational basis and cannot be said to be arbitrary. 19. It therefore, do not consider it necessary to admit these writ petitions and the same are rejected in limine.