JUDGMENT 1. - Meaningful question that requires my consideration in all these writ petitions is whether criteria adopted for drawing the inter se merit list and the reserve list of the candidates possessing same number of aggregate marks on the basis of marks obtained in vi-va-voce alone for the posts of Rajasthan Judicial Service is wholly bad in law ? 2. The respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer (for short the RPSC) published an advertisement on July 15, 1994 inviting applications for filling up 113 posts of Munsif and Judicial Magistrates as per qualifications laid down under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules 1955 (for short the RJS Rules). The petitioners appeared in the examination conducted in pursuance to the advertisement and secured marks as under:- Name Written Examination viva-voce Total (i) Santosh Kumar Poonia 149 15 164 (ii) Kailash Chand Agal 142 22 164 (iii) Anand Krishna Nagar 151 18 169 (iv) Surya Prakash Dosaya 149 20 169 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that the merit list and reserve list were arranged by the RPSC on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the viva voce examination. The candidates who secured the same number of total marks as the petitioners did, were shown ahead in the merit list and the reserve list on the basis of marks obtained by them in the viva voce. Petitioner Santosh Kumar Poonia in Writ Petition No.937/96 has incorporated a comparative chart of the marks obtained by a few candidates thus- Name Roll No. Written Examination viva voce Total Merit No. Suresh Chand 2041 136 28 164 55 Naresh Gupta 198 138 26 164 56 Bhanu Goyal 3051 139 25 164 57 Santosh Kumar Poonia 3448 149 15 164 Petitioner Santosh Kumar Poonia though secured 164 marks i.e. the same total of marks obtained by other candidates Suresh Chand, Naresh Gupta, and Bhanu Goyal, yet his name was not included even in reserve list. The names of other candidates Suresh Chand, Naresh Gupta and Bhanu Goyal were included at Nos. 55, 56, 57 in the reserve list. Evidently the merit list and the reserve list was arranged by the RPSC on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in viva voce examination. According to the petitioners the aforesaid criteria is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. 55, 56, 57 in the reserve list. Evidently the merit list and the reserve list was arranged by the RPSC on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in viva voce examination. According to the petitioners the aforesaid criteria is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. It is contended that minimum marks have been laid down for qualifying in the written test, no minimum marks have been provided for passing the interview. Thus the RPSC has given more importance to the marks obtained in the written examination than the marks of the interview. Oral interview test can not be made a sole criteria for determining general suitability of the candidate. 4. Before I further deal with the merits of the petitions, it will be useful to refer at this juncture the scheme of RJS Rules. 5. In Part V, of the RJS Rules, procedure for recruitment has been provided. Rule 14 provides for holding competitive examination from time to time, which is conducted by the RPSC. Rule 15 provides syllabus for the. competitive examination as prescribed in Schedule M. Schedule III reads as under: "Schedule III Syllabus for competitive examination for recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service shall consist of A. Competitive Examination for recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service shall consist of- (a) a written examination in the subject hereinafter mentioned, and (b) an interview to test the general knowledge of the candidate and his fitness for appointment. B. The examination will be in the following subjects each subject carrying the number of marks shown against each : Subjects Marks 1. Law Paper I 100 2. Law Paper II 100 3. Language (i) Paper I (Hindi) Essay 50 4. Language (ii) Paper II (Essay) 50 5. Viva Voce 100 Law Paper I is designed to test the practical knowledge of the candidates in civil law and procedure e.g. drafting pleadings, framing issues and writing out judgments etc. in civil cases. Law Paper II is designed to test the practical knowledge of the candidates in criminal law and procedure e.g. framing charges and writing out judgments etc. in criminal cases. Law Paper I and II shall be answered either in English or in Hindi but no candidate shall be permitted to answer any of these papers partly in Hindi and partly in English. in criminal cases. Law Paper I and II shall be answered either in English or in Hindi but no candidate shall be permitted to answer any of these papers partly in Hindi and partly in English. After the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test have been received, the Commission shall call for interview such of them as have obtained a minimum of 35 per cent marks in each of the law papers and 40 per cent marks in the aggregate. In interviewing a candidate, the suitable for employment to the Judicial Service shall be tested with reference to his record at the School, College and University and his character, personality address and physique. The questions which may be put up to him may be of a general nature and will not necessarily be academic or legal. The candidate will also be put questions to test his general knowledge including knowledge of current affairs and present day problems. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each candidate. A sitting Judge of the High Court nominated by the Chief justice shall as a representative of the High Court, be one of the members of the Interview Board and the opinion given by him with regard to the suitability of a candidate shall prevail unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting it and such strong and cogent reasons shall be recorded in writing." 6. Rule 19 of the RJS Rules provides for preparation of list of candidates recommended by the Commission, which provides thus-"19. List of candidates recommended by the Commission:- (1) The Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates recommended by them for direct recruitment in order of their proficiency as disclosed by their aggregate marks. Rule 19 of the RJS Rules provides for preparation of list of candidates recommended by the Commission, which provides thus-"19. List of candidates recommended by the Commission:- (1) The Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates recommended by them for direct recruitment in order of their proficiency as disclosed by their aggregate marks. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate the Commission shall arrange them in order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for Service:Provided that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate both of Written and Oral Examinations:Provided further that while selecting candidates for the vacancies so advertised, the Commission may (i) if intimation of additional requirement is sent to the Commission before the selection and (ii) if suitable persons are available, keep on their reserve list more candidates whose number shall not exceed 50% of the advertised vacancies, the names of such candidates may be recommended on requisition to the appointing authorities within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government. (2) Two copies of such list shall be submitted by the Commission to the Rajpramukh." 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that the RPSC has committed an illegality while preparing the merit list of the candidates receiving the equal marks in the aggregate. If the interpretation given by the RPSC is accepted then there will be an anomalous situation that person who has obtained maximum marks in the written test and has secured minimum marks in the interview then he would be deprived from appointment. The interpretation of Rule 19 of the RJS Rules with regard to general suitability for service is limited to the extent that selection authorities are required to give much weightage to the academic qualification and experience obtained by an advocate. This facts also corroborated from Schedule III of the RJS Rules, where even the purpose of interview has been given. The candidates who appeared in the interview test are not necessarily asked questions of academic and legal nature but the purpose is to test the general knowledge including knowledge of current affairs and present day problems. This facts also corroborated from Schedule III of the RJS Rules, where even the purpose of interview has been given. The candidates who appeared in the interview test are not necessarily asked questions of academic and legal nature but the purpose is to test the general knowledge including knowledge of current affairs and present day problems. Had the interview been confined to legal knowledge then the basis of interview could have been justified by the selection authorities but not otherwise. Although the interview of the RJS was undertaken by the senior Judge of the High Court, the oral interview test cannot be made a sole criteria for determining general suitability for service. Reliance was placed on (1) Ajay Haisa v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi 1981 (1) SCC 722 , (2) Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 , (3) Mohinder Sen Garg v. State of Punjab 1991(1) SCC 662 , (4) Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and others (Supreme Court Service Rulings Vol. 3 1987 page 421) , (5) Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC page 159 , (6) Mehmood Alam Tariq and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (1988) 3 SCC page 241 , (7) Madan Lal and others v. State of J & K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486 . 8. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. A look at Rule 19 of the RJS Rules demonstrates that the Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates recommended by them for direct recruitment in order of their proficiency as disclosed by their aggregate marks. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate the Commission shall arrange them in order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for service. Rule 19 of the RJS Rules has to be read with Schedule III of the RJS Rules. 9. Schedule III of the RJS Rules provides that competitive examination for recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service shall consist of - (a) a written examination in the subject hereinafter mentioned, and (b) an interview to test the general knowledge of the candidate and his fitness for appointment. 9. Schedule III of the RJS Rules provides that competitive examination for recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service shall consist of - (a) a written examination in the subject hereinafter mentioned, and (b) an interview to test the general knowledge of the candidate and his fitness for appointment. (underlining is mine) Schedule III of the RJS Rules further provides that in interviewing a candidate, the suitable for employment to the judicial Service shall be tested with reference to his record at the School, College and University and his character, personality address and physique. The questions which may be put up to him may be of a general nature and will not necessarily be academic or legal. The candidate will also be put questions to test his general knowledge including knowledge of current affairs and present day problems. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each candidate. Schedule III of the RJS Rules further provides that a sitting Judge of the High Court nominated by the Chief justice shall as a representative of the High Court, be one of the members of the Interview Board and the opinion given by him with regard to the suitability of a candidate shall prevail unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting it and such strong and cogent reasons shall be recorded in writing. (underlining is mine) 10. Broad principles that may be deduced from a combined reading of Rule 19 and Schedule III of the RJS Rules, are as under : (i) List of the candidate shall be prepared in order of merit on the basis of the general suitability of the candidate for Service. (ii) In interview, the general knowledge of the candidate and his fitness for appointment has to be tested. (iii) Marks awarded in the interview have to be added to the marks obtained in the written examination. Opinion of a Sitting Judge of the High Court with regard to suitability of the candidate has to be prevailed unless there are cogent reasons for not accepting it. 11. The crux of the above discussion is that after passing the written examination by a candidate, his fitness for appointment is to be tested in interview and the opinion of the Sitting Judge of the High Court, who is member of the Interview Board shall prevail. 11. The crux of the above discussion is that after passing the written examination by a candidate, his fitness for appointment is to be tested in interview and the opinion of the Sitting Judge of the High Court, who is member of the Interview Board shall prevail. By obtaining marks in written examination fitness of a candidate for appointment cannot be tested. Under these circumstances if weightage has been given by the RPSC to the marks obtained in the interview, it cannot be said as illegal and arbitrary. Admittedly no mala fide has been pleaded against any member of the Interview Board. Merit list as well as the reserve list were prepared by the RPSC on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidate in the interview. I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marks obtained in written examination should be placed on a higher pedestal. Looking to the scheme of the RJS Rules, the criteria adopted by the RPSC in preparing the merit list as well as the reserve list cannot be said unjust. The ratio of the case laws cited by the learned counsel is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant cases. 12. The writ petitions have no merit and are dismissed accordingly. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******