Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.) P.D. Dinakaran, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 17.3.2005 issued in G.O.(2D)No.81, Home(Court.III) Department, and to quash the same in so far as the respondents 3 to 12 are concerned and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to fill the vacancies in the cadre of District Judge following the rule of reservation. 2. According to the petitioner, after enrolling herself as an Advocate in the year 1992, she has been practising both in civil and criminal side. When applications were called for to the post of District Judge, the petitioner had also applied for the same. She was called for the interview on 27.4.2004 and she had performed well in the interview. The first respondent, by G.O.(2D) No.81, Home Department, dated 17.3.2005, appointed ten candidates as District Judges. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said G.O., made a representation to the second respondent that she being the only women candidate, she ought to have been selected under the quota reserved for women candidates. Since no order has been passed on the said representation, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition. 3. The petitioner challenges the G.O. issued by the first respondent appointing ten candidates as District Judge on the following grounds: (a) The petitioner was the only women candidate out of thirty candidates who were called for the interview; (b) three vacancies were reserved for women, out of ten vacancies; and (c) the impugned G.O. is liable to be quashed on the ground that rule of reservation was not followed. 4. 4. In the matter of selection and appointment of the District Judges, the Apex Court, in STATE OF BIHAR v. BAL MUKUND SAH ( 2000 (4) SCC 640 , has observed as follows: "In the light of the constitutional scheme guaranteeing independence of the Judiciary and separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary, the Constitution-makers have taken care to see by enacting relevant provisions for the recruitment of eligible persons to discharge judicial functions from the grass-root level of the Judiciary up to the apex level of the District Judiciary, that rules made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court in case of recruitment at grass-root level and the recommendation of the High Court for appointments at the apex level of the District Judiciary under Article 233, remain the sole repository of power to effect such recruitments and appointments. It is easy to visualise that if suitable and competent candidates are not recruited at both these levels, the out-turn of the judicial product would not be of that high level which is expected of judicial officers so as to meet the expectations of suffering humanity representing a class of litigants who come for redressal of their legal grievances at the hands of a competent, impartial and objective Judiciary. The Presiding Officer of the Court if not being fully equipped with legal grounding may not be able to deliver the goods which the litigating public expects him to deliver. Thus, to ensure the recruitment of the best available talent both at the grass-root level as well as at the apex level of the District Judiciary, Articles 233 and 234 have permitted full interaction between the High Court which is the expert body controlling the District Judiciary and the Governor who is the appointing authority and who almost carries out the ministerial function of appointing recommended candidates both by the Public Service Commission and the High Court at the grass-root level and also has to appoint only those candidates who are recommended by the High Court for appointment at the apex level of the District Judiciary. .... It is a misnomer to suggest that any imposition of scheme of reservation for filling up vacancies in already existing, created and sanctioned posts in any cadre of District Judges or Subordinate Judiciary will have nothing to do with the concept of recruitment and appointment for filling up such vacancies. ... .... It is a misnomer to suggest that any imposition of scheme of reservation for filling up vacancies in already existing, created and sanctioned posts in any cadre of District Judges or Subordinate Judiciary will have nothing to do with the concept of recruitment and appointment for filling up such vacancies. ... " 5. In view of the above observation, it is a misnomer to suggest that merely because the petitioner is the only lady candidate, she is entitled to be recruited in one of the three vacancies reserved for women, even though she is found to be not eligible by the selection Committee for recruitment to the post of District Judge. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No.28281 of 2005 is also dismissed.