Judgment :- Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the written examination held on 25. 1997 and 25. 1997 for direct recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) /Judicial Magistrate, First Class, conduct a fresh written examination, and pass such further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner as gathered from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition briefly stated, is as follows:- The petitioner is a practising advocate at Ambasamudram for over 20 years. He completed his B.A. degree in 1973 and acquired his B.L. degree from the Madras Law College during 1976 and enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar council of Tamil Nadu on 11. 1977. He belongs to a backward community. He was Government pleader for two terms and represented the Port Trust of Tuticorin, Educational agencies, etc. during the period of his practice. He has also contributed several articles to the journal section of the Madras Law Journal. 3. The second respondent issued notification dated 111. 1996 calling for applications for appointment to fill up 100 vacancies in the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division)/ judicial Magistrate, First Class. Thereafter the second respondent issued supplementary notification announcing the modification in the method of selection by conducting written cum-viva voce examination. The second respondent by memorandum No.10163/APD-CJ.B/96 dated 24. 1997 informed the petitioner that the written examination will be held at 8 centres in the state on 24. 1997 and 25. 1997. He was also supplied with the copy of the supplementary notification and copy of the scheme and syllabus of the examination. 4. The Written examination consisted of four papers viz., (i) Translation paper, (ii) Law Paper I, (iii) Law paper II, and (iv) Law paper III. Maximum marks for each paper was 100 and the minimum marks for pass in each paper was 30 for S.C./S.Ts., 35 for M.B.Cs., D.Cs., and B.Cs., and 40 others. Maximum marks for Viva-voce was 60, and 18 marks was the minimum pass mark for all. Candidates securing less then the minimum marks 18 prescribed for Viva-voce examination are not eligible for selection. The syllabi for written examination in respect of each paper was given in annexure II to the supplementary Notification. Maximum marks for Viva-voce was 60, and 18 marks was the minimum pass mark for all. Candidates securing less then the minimum marks 18 prescribed for Viva-voce examination are not eligible for selection. The syllabi for written examination in respect of each paper was given in annexure II to the supplementary Notification. Since controversy in this Writ petition relates to Law Paper III, syllabi, to the extent it is relevant, reads: .(I) .(II) (III) .(IV) Law Paper III- Framing of charges and Writing of Judgments in Criminal cases. .(v) The note appended to the Annexure stated that the question papers in Law Paper, I,II and III will be set forth in English and Tamil. 5. Thus the second respondent had specifically drawn out a syllabi for the written examination and the same was made known to the candidates. As such any deviation from the syllabi is impermissible as the Notification giving the details of the procedure of selection is in the nature of a rule and the same is binding. Any deviation from the syllabi or the pattern of questioning has to be viewed seriously. The candidates appearing for the written examination legitimately expected that there will be no deviation from the procedure notified. However, to the utter shock of the petitioner the second respondent altered the entire pattern of question, more particularly in respect of law paper III. Law paper III was with regard to framing of charges and writing of Judgment in criminal cases. Hence in respect of law paper III the examinee should be provided with material to frame charge in a criminal case such as model F.I.R., Section 161 (3), Cr.P.C. statement of witnesses, etc. to enable him to frame a charge and thereafter write a judgment. 6. However, in Law paper III the pattern of question was entirely different from the notified scheme. The candidates were called upon to answer four out of six questions in Section-A, and 2 out of 3 questions in Section-B. None of the question related to framing of a charge and writing of Judgment in criminal case. Therefore the petitioner and other candidates were put to disadvantage. The candidates were called upon to answer four out of six questions in Section-A, and 2 out of 3 questions in Section-B. None of the question related to framing of a charge and writing of Judgment in criminal case. Therefore the petitioner and other candidates were put to disadvantage. The Second respondent issued a correction slip to the Instructions to the candidates for the examination, wherein, in instruction No.25, it is stated that any representation regarding defects in the question paper should be sent to the Controller of examination, the third respondent herein within three days from the date of examination. The petitioner took the examination on 25. 1997 and 25. 1997 at Tirunelveli Center. He sent detailed objection on 25. 1997 to the third respondent pointing out the gross error, more particularly in Law paper III as it was contrary to the syllabus notified. He also pointed out defects in the question papers in respect of other papers also. The respondent has received the objections, but no action was taken and expeditions steps mere being taken to declare results. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed the writ petition for the reliefs as stated above. 7. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit on 30th July, 1997 opposing the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition stating that the commission in its Notification dated 111. 1996 invited applications from the intending candidates for appointment against 100 vacancies in the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, First 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 (for short the Rules). According to paragraph 5 of the said rules relating to the post of Civil Judge, the method of selection for appointment to the post, by direct recruitment, would be on the basis of written examination and Viva-voce examination conducted by the commission in accordance with rules. 8. According to the proviso under the said rules issued through an amendment in G.O.Ms.No.1050, Home, dated 17. 1996, the Government may in times of exigencies, permit the commission to resort to direct recruitment solely on the basis of viva-voce examination dispensing with the written examination. Pursuant to the said G.O., the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1818, Home, dated 12. 8. According to the proviso under the said rules issued through an amendment in G.O.Ms.No.1050, Home, dated 17. 1996, the Government may in times of exigencies, permit the commission to resort to direct recruitment solely on the basis of viva-voce examination dispensing with the written examination. Pursuant to the said G.O., the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1818, Home, dated 12. 1996 specifically requested the Commission to make the selection by resorting to the method of viva-voce alone. Accordingly the Commission in its Notification dated 111. 1996 announced that the selection would be made on the basis of viva-voce examination only, but the same were challenged before this Court by certain candidates in W.P.Nos.2447 of 1997 etc. This Court was pleased to allow the State Government to make the selection on the basis of written examination, and viva-voce test. Hence the Commission issued a supplemental Notification announcing the method of selection as written examination-cum- viva-voce examination, instead of viva-voce examination alone as already notified. 9. The scheme of the written examination and oral test appended in Annexure I to the Notification is as follows:- Subject Dure - Max. tion. Marks Minimum qualifying Marks in each paper Written SC/ST MBC /DC & BC Others Translation Paper 3 Hrs. 00 2. Law Paper-I 3 Hrs. 100 Law Paper - II 3 Hrs. 030 35 40 Law Paper - III 3 Hrs. 00 a-Voce 6018 18 18 Note: The candidates who have secured lesser marks than the minimum marks specified above in any paper of the written examination are not eligible for viva-voce examination. Candidates who have secured less than the minimum prescribed for viva-voce examination are not eligible for selection. 10. According to the annexure to the rules relating to the post of Civil Judge issued in G.O.Ms.No.713, Home, dated 15. 1995, the District Judges who have put in not less than three years of service are eligible to be appointed as examiners. The respondent has also given the details and particulars relating to the setting up of question papers. 11. It is submitted that the petitioner was one of the candidates who applied to the Commission for recruitment. He was admitted to the Written examination on 25. 1997 and 25. 1997. As soon as the examination was over, in his representation, the petitioner pointed out certain defects in the question papers, mainly complaining about law paper III. 11. It is submitted that the petitioner was one of the candidates who applied to the Commission for recruitment. He was admitted to the Written examination on 25. 1997 and 25. 1997. As soon as the examination was over, in his representation, the petitioner pointed out certain defects in the question papers, mainly complaining about law paper III. 11 other representations were also received alleging certain defects in the question papers. The representation of the petitioner and 11 others were examined by the Commission and were found to be without merits, and suitable communication would be sent shortly. It is denied that the questions in Law Paper in were out of syllabus. Since some of the questions occurred in Law Paper III relate to the basic principles laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, without which the candidates cannot frame charges and cannot write Judgment in Criminal cases; it cannot be said that the questions were out of syllabus. 12. It is further stated that out of 2775 candidates who appeared for the written examination, only the petitioner and 11 others have made allegations that the questions in Law Paper III were out of syllabus. Further no examiner in the grade of District Judges with three years experience, who evaluated the answer papers including Law Paper III, has pointed out any kind of defects in the question papers. If questions in Law Paper III had really been out of syllabus the same would have affected all the candidates who appeared for the examination. But the very fact that very few had made representations would go to show that the questions were answerable. Added to this, out of 2734 candidates who appeared for Law Paper III, 1956, 1643 and 1213 candidates have obtained the prescribed qualifying marks of 30%, 35% and 40% respectively prescribed for admission to viva-voce examination. Therefore it is to be presumed that the petitioner having failed to fare well in the written examination has chosen to file the writ petition. 13. It is further stated that this Court in W.P.No.2447 of 1997 etc. batch, as agreed by the Government, ordered for the finalisation of the selection by resorting to the method of selection i.e., written examination and viva-voce examination within 108 days, or at any rate within 120 days, from 4. 13. It is further stated that this Court in W.P.No.2447 of 1997 etc. batch, as agreed by the Government, ordered for the finalisation of the selection by resorting to the method of selection i.e., written examination and viva-voce examination within 108 days, or at any rate within 120 days, from 4. 1997, and in accordance with the same the whole process of selection is being attended to on a war-footing in order to complete the process of selection. The Register numbers of the candidates who were summoned for the oral test had been published and that the viva-voce examination was proposed to be held from 8. 1997, and the select list is expected to be finalised before the middle of August, 1997 at any rate. Thus the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. Shri.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the syllabus for Law Paper III was for framing of charges and writing of Judgment in criminal cases, but the questions in Law Paper III were totally un-related to the framing of charge and writing of Judgment in criminal cases, and as such the petitioner was mis-led; the respondents 2 and 3 having notified the syllabus, the petitioner had legitimate expectation that the questions in law paper III would contain questions relating to framing of charges and writing of Judgments in criminal cases; although all the questions in the remaining papers were not directly in accordance with the syllabus, they were substantially in accordance with the syllabus, but the question in Law Paper III were outside the syllabus. He also contended that immediately after the petitioner wrote the examinations on 25. 1997 and 25. 1997, sent his detailed objections on 25. 1997 as contemplated in instruction No.25, to the third respondent, pointing out the gross error committed more particularly in the question paper in Law Paper III, the respondent No.3, having received the objection, did not consider the same even till the date of filing of the writ petition; and failure to do so has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. Hence it is just and proper to grant the relief to the petitioner as sought for. 15 . Hence it is just and proper to grant the relief to the petitioner as sought for. 15 . Per contra, the learned Additional Government, Pleader, representing the respondents, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, urged that having regard to 100 vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the Commission issued notification dated 111. 1996 inviting applications from the intending candidates for appointment against 100 vacancies to the said post; in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.247 of 1997 etc., the Commission issued a supplementary Notification referring to the said writ petitions, stating that selection for the said post would be made by conducting written-cum-viva-voce examination; 2734 candidates appeared for Law Paper III examination; out of them 1956,1643 and 1213 candidates have obtained the prescribed qualifying marks of 30%, 35% and 40% respectively; only 12 candidates including the petitioner complained about the difficulty in the questions in Law Paper III; the very fact that large number of candidates appeared for the examination in Law Paper III, and large number of candidates have also passed in the said paper, itself shows that the grievance of the petitioner cannot constitute a ground for canceling the examinations held; at any rate the examinations already held cannot be vitiated; although as per instruction No.25 given in annexure to the supplementary notification issued by the commission, a representation regarding the difficulties in the question paper could be sent to the controller of examinations within three days from the date of examination, and in the case on hand the petitioner has sent such a representation within the time, that itself did not confer any right on the petitioner to get the examination cancelled; the representation of the petitioner and 11 others were examined by the Commission and they were found to be without any merit; and that a suitable communication would be sent in that regard; the petitioner having written the examination in all the papers on 25. 1997 and 25. 1997, has filed the writ petition on 7. 1997 and 25. 1997, has filed the writ petition on 7. 1997, may be on realising that he could not pass in Law Paper III; cancelling the examinations already held would result in great hardship to thousands of candidates who have passed the examination; even the results of written examination were published, the viva-voce examination was scheduled to be held from 1st August, 1997, and the select list is expected to be finalised before the middle of August, 1997 at any rate, in view of the directions given in W.P.No.2447 of 1997 etc. He added that if the selection process is not completed as per the undertaking given to this Court in W.P.No.2447 of 1997 etc., serious consequences could follow. Under the circumstances he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 16. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. It is not disputed that 2734 candidates have appeared for Law Paper III and out of them 1956, 1643 and 1213 candidates have secured the prescribed qualifying marks of 30%, 35% and 40% respectively for admission to the viva-voce examination; having regard to large number of candidates passing in Law Paper III, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Even the questions asked in Law Paper III are not totally unrelated. The knowledge of Criminal Procedure Code is necessary for the purpose of framing charges and writing judgments in criminal cases, and the plain reading of the questions in Law Paper III clearly shows that they substantially relate to the provisions of the criminal procedure code including the questions relating to writing of judgment in criminal cases. a.18 . Moreover, if any defects are pointed out in relation to question papers, the Commission may decide on merits having regard to the fact of such defect and all other relevant circumstances on all the candidates as a whole, and not in relation to an individual candidate or few candidates. May be depending on the circumstances, the entire examination relating to a particular paper could also be cancelled in extreme cases. Added to this the questions asked in Law Paper III cannot be said to be alien to the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly having regard to one of the qualifications to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, First Class being four years standing at the Bar. Added to this the questions asked in Law Paper III cannot be said to be alien to the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly having regard to one of the qualifications to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, First Class being four years standing at the Bar. Plain reading of the questions in Law Paper III does not give an impression that judged by any standard it was so un-related or difficult to answer the questions. 19 . There are nearly 100 vacancies to be filled up in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and having regard to all aspects the Division Bench of this Court (One of us-Shivaraj Patil, J. — was a party to the said decision) passed an order on 4. 1997 in W.P.No.2447 of 1997 etc., batch, to complete the selection to the said post within 120 days on the basis of the undertaking given by the respondents. Accordingly the written examinations were held on 25. 1997 and 2 5. 1997. Nearly 2734 candidates wrote the examination in Law Paper III,. Though the petitioner made representation on 25. 1997 pointing out the defects in the question paper in Law Paper III, he did not approach this Court within a reasonable time. If the respondents 2 and 3 have not taken any action on the representation made by him on 25. 1997, he could not have waited almost till the results were about to be published. He filed the writ petition only on 7. 1997 may be as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, realising that he could not pass the examination in Law Paper III. b.20 . The results of the written examination were declared, and even viva-voce examination was proposed to be held from 1st August, 1997 as is clear from the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 on 30.7.1997. Instruction No.25 contained in the Annexure to the supplemental Notification, no doubt, provided for making representation as to the defect in question paper, if any, within three days after the examination. But by that itself it cannot be taken or insisted that the examination held should be cancelled. May be when the defect in the question paper was pointed out, the Commission could take appropriate action on merits, if needed by way of moderation, or take such other action as could be considered appropriate. c.21 . But by that itself it cannot be taken or insisted that the examination held should be cancelled. May be when the defect in the question paper was pointed out, the Commission could take appropriate action on merits, if needed by way of moderation, or take such other action as could be considered appropriate. c.21 . On the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact of passing of large number of candidates, and there were objections only from 12 candidates out of 2734 candidates, it is not just and reasonable to grant the relief to the petitioner as sought for, to cancel the written examination already held. In case such a relief is granted, it would cause great hardship and serious prejudice to large number of candidates who have passed the examination. Besides it would cause delay and difficulty in selection of candidates leading to keeping of vacancies unfilled for long time, affecting the administration of justice and the public interest would suffer. d.22 . In addition to this the petitioner having written the Law Paper III and sensing and realising that he would not pass in Law Paper III, and thinking that he would not get interview call for viva-voce examination, he has approached this Court just on the eve of the declaration of results. As such, he is not entitled for the relief. In a similar situation, the Apex Court, in the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1043, in paragraph 23, has stated thus:- "Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yard stick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination." In the case on hand also the petitioner took up the examination held on 25. 1997 and 25. 1997 including in Law Paper III without any protest. The same yard stick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination." In the case on hand also the petitioner took up the examination held on 25. 1997 and 25. 1997 including in Law Paper III without any protest. Under the circumstances, in our view, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 23 . In the result, for the reasons stated, we see no merit in the writ petition. It is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.