Judgment :- G. Rohini, J. The provisional selection of 17 candidates for recruitment to the posts of District & Sessions Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment in the A.P. Judicial Service is under challenge in all these writ petitions. The facts in brief are as under: By notification dated 10.08.2010 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh notified 18 vacancies for the year 2010 in the category of District & Sessions Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment in the A.P. Judicial Service. Accordingly, the Government of A.P. issued an advertisement in the newspapers, dated 18.08.2010 and 19.08.2010 inviting applications for appointment to the said 18 posts. The last date for receipt of applications was 3.9.2010. The qualifications and age mentioned in the advertisement are as under: “Qualifications and Age: The applicant for the above said post should be (a) an Advocate of not less than seven years standing at the Bar (b) must not have completed 45 years of age on the first day of August, 2010 (relaxation by three years in the upper age limit in respect of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) and (c) of sound health and active habits and free from any body defect or infirmity which render him/her unfit for such appointment." The mode of examination, syllabus, minimum qualifying marks to be secured and other particulars are also specified in the notification. Some of the particulars, which are necessary for the purpose of the present case are: “Mode of Examination etc. Selection to the above posts shall be by written examination comprising (a) Objective questions with multiple choice and (b) Subjective/Narrative, which is for 80 marks, followed by an interview. … … … … … … … Viva-Voce (Interview) : The Viva-voce is for 20 marks. … … … … … … … Minimum qualifying marks to be secured: The candidate shall secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% for OC category, 35% for BC category, and 30% for SC and ST categories in the written examination and minimum marks of 10 for OC category, 8 for BC category and 6 for SC and ST categories in the viva voce.” Altogether 2734 applications were received by the State Government and the same were forwarded to the High Court. After scrutiny of the applications, the High Court sent hall-tickets to all the eligible candidates informing them that the written examination would be held on 23.01.2011. However it was postponed and the written examination was held on 6.3.2011 for which 1743 candidates had appeared. On evaluation of the answer sheets, 52 candidates were declared to have been qualified by notification dated 8.8.2011 and they were required to appear for viva-voce from 7.12.2011 onwards. In the meanwhile by G.O.Ms.No.132, Law (LA&J SC.F) Department, dated 16.11.2011, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 have been amended in terms of the resolution dated 1.8.2011 passed by the Administrative Committee of High Court of Andhra Pradesh resolving to delete the requirement of minimum marks in viva-voce. Thus by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, the expression ‘and a minimum marks of 10 for OC category, 8 for BC category and 6 for SC & ST category in the viva-voce’ in the provisos to sub-rules (4) & (10) of Rule 6 of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 has been omitted. The said G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was uploaded to the Official Website of the Government of A.P. on 16.11.2011 itself. On 17.11.2011 it was resolved by the Administrative Committee of the High Court of A.P. to conduct interview to the 52 qualified candidates by applying Rule 6 (4) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. Accordingly, the interviews were conducted from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 as per schedule and 17 candidates were declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment. One vacancy reserved for ST (women) remained unfilled as none was qualified. The list of 17 provisionally selected candidates was approved by the Administrative Committee and also the Full Court of the High Court of A.P. on 16.12.2011. On 22.12.2011 the High Court of A.P. published the following list of candidates who are declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment to 17 posts of District and Sessions Judge (Entry Level) by direct recruitment: On 30.12.2011 the High Court sent the above said list of provisionally selected candidates to the Government for issuing necessary orders of appointment. At that stage, these four writ petitions came to be filed. At that stage, these four writ petitions came to be filed. Whereas the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34683 of 2011, 34805 of 2011 and 894 of 2012 are the candidates who were qualified in the written examination, PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 is filed by a practicing advocate as a Public Interest Litigation assailing the selection of only one candidate who is shown at Sl.No.5 of the list of provisionally selected candidates. The petitioner in W.P.No.34683 of 2011 by name Tirumala Devi Eada, seeks a declaration that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and to quash the same. She also prayed for setting aside the selection of the respondents 3 to 19 therein i.e., all the provisionally selected candidates and to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to select and appoint her to the post of District & Sessions Judge (entry level) . In the alternative the petitioner seeks a declaration that the amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is only prospective in nature and that the same shall not be made applicable to the selection process that was started pursuant to the notification dated 19.8.2010 and consequently to declare the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in not taking into account the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce is illegal and contrary to Rule 6 (1) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. W.P.No.34805 of 2011 is filed by one B. Sai Kalyan Chakravarthy seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in applying G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 to the recruitment of the District & Sessions Judges pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 is arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the selection list published vide Notification dated 22.12.2011. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to finalize the selections as per the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 2.8.2008 without reference to the amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The petitioner in W.P.No.894 of 2012 by name Aruna Sarika seeks a declaration that the application of the amended rule vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 to the selection process that was initiated on 19.8.2010 is illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently the petitioner seeks a direction to nullify the selection process from the stage of the interviews and then to make fresh selection as per the unamended Rules under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 2.8.2008. Consequently the petitioner seeks a direction to nullify the selection process from the stage of the interviews and then to make fresh selection as per the unamended Rules under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 2.8.2008. In PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 the selection of only one candidate i.e., the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is assailed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012 are identical and almost all the provisionally selected candidates are arrayed as respondents. It is primarily contended in the said three writ petitions that Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 by virtue of which the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in viva voce is deleted cannot be made applicable to the selections in question since the selection process has already commenced pursuant to the advertisement dated 18/19.08.2010. Consequently the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 8, 11, 14, 15 & 16 of the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, who secured less than the required minimum marks, is sought to be declared illegal. Similarly the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16 & 17 has also been challenged on various other grounds. In PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 the selection of the respondent No.4 therein (the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011) alone is challenged alleging that he had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria since he did not have the seven years standing at the Bar as on the date of the notification inviting applications for appointment. Since a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents as to the very maintainability of PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012, we propose to deal with the contentions advanced in the said writ petition a little later after adverting to the common issues involved in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012. For the sake of convenience, the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge, shall hereinafter be referred to as per their respective serial numbers in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011. For the sake of convenience, the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge, shall hereinafter be referred to as per their respective serial numbers in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011. It may also be mentioned that the selection of four candidates namely Chinthalapudi Purushotham Kumar, Sujana Kalasikam, B.R. Madhusudana Rao and Gokavarapu Srinivas who are shown at Sl.Nos.3, 6, 7 & 13 respectively in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is not challenged in any one of the writ petitions. The said fact has not been disputed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The grounds of challenge in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012: In W.P.No.34683 of 2011, it is contended that the amendment to Rules 6 (4) & (10) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 which has been effected by the Government but not the Governor solely in terms of the directions by the High Court of A.P. is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the impugned amendment ought not to have been applied to viva-voce held from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 firstly for the reason that the rules cannot be changed after the commencement of the selection process and secondly for the reason that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was not published in the Official Gazette by the date of viva-voce held from 7.12.2011 onwards. It is further contended that the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who has not satisfied the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar is illegal. The selection of the said candidate is assailed also on the ground that he has not completed the minimum age limit of 35 years. The selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9 & 16 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is also assailed on the very same ground that they have not completed the minimum age limit of 35 years. The selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9 & 16 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is also assailed on the very same ground that they have not completed the minimum age limit of 35 years. Similarly the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who is allegedly in full-time employment with a Private Limited Company and the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9, 10 & 12 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors as on the date of submission of their applications is questioned contending that they are ineligible for appointment since they are already in service of the State Government. The allegation against the candidate at Sl.No.17 is that she went abroad in 2001 and returned back to India only in December, 2004. Hence the said period ought not to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar. It is also contended that in the absence of amendment to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 which is the substantial provision, the impugned amendment to Rules 6 (4) & 6 (10) is unenforceable. In W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012 it is contended that the entire selection list is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the impugned amendment was not in existence by the date of the advertisement, dated 18/19.8.2010. It is also contended that the impugned amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, is irrational and unconstitutional since it has virtually rendered the process of viva-voce an empty formality. Case of the respondents: Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the High Court of A.P. Separate counter-affidavits have also been filed by all the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge. Case of the respondents: Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the High Court of A.P. Separate counter-affidavits have also been filed by all the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge. The Registrar (Recruitment) filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the High Court of A.P. stating that the Registry of the High Court placed an office note before the Chief Justice about the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (1) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (1992) 1 SCC 119 ], ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (2) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (1993) 4 SCC 288 ], ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ], RAMESH KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [ (2010) 3 SCC 104 ] and also the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission with regard to deletion of the minimum marks in the viva-voce in relation to direct recruitment to the posts of District Judges. As directed by the Chief Justice, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court in the meeting held on 1.8.2011 and on consideration of the decisions of the Supreme Court it was resolved by the Committee to amend Rule 6 (4) and 6 (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. The minutes of the Administrative Committee was circulated to all the Judges and on receipt of their views a note was placed before the Chief Justice on 19.8.2011 and the same was approved. Accordingly, by letter dated 20.08.2011 the Government was requested to amend Rule 6 (4) and 6 (10) . The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 amending Rule 6 (4) & (10) and the said amendment was uploaded to the official website of the Government of A.P. immediately for the information of all the candidates. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee in the meeting held on 17.11.2011 in which it was resolved to send call letters to 52 eligible candidates and to apply the amended Rule 6 (4) so as to implement the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission which had been accepted by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ]. As resolved by the Administrative Committee, information was sent to the 52 qualified candidates requiring them to appear for viva-voce from 7.12.2011 onwards and the final merit list was prepared after the interviews were conducted and it was published on 22.12.2011. While stating that the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission for deletion of minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce was accepted by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ] and thus it became the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is contended that the respondents 1 & 2 are bound to implement the same. Hence the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) was brought in under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 and it was rightly made applicable to the selection process in question. So far as publication in Official Gazette is concerned, it is pleaded that due to administrative delay G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was published in the Official Gazette only on 3.1.2012. However, it is contended that the petitioners as well as all the candidates applied in response to the advertisement dated 18/19.8.2010 are deemed in law to have knowledge of the amendment to Rule 6 since the same was uploaded to the official website of the State Government much prior to the viva-voce. It is further contended that uploading to the official website to which anybody can have access, has to be construed as a reasonable mode of publication of the amendment and therefore non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in A.P. State Gazette did not vitiate the selection process. It is explained that the impugned amendment to Rule 6 (4) is only for the purpose of giving better chance to the candidates who have secured higher marks in the written examination and to qualify them for selection and such amendment which has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners but on the other hand has merely widened the field of consideration for selection cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. With regard to the contention that the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of the provisionally selected candidates did not possess the required standing of 7 years at the Bar is concerned, it is explained that the period of 9 months during which he pursued his further studies i.e., Master of Laws in U.S.A. need not be deducted since no provision of the Advocates Act prohibits any advocate from pursuing further studies in Law. Thus it is contended that as on the date of his application the candidate at Sl.No.5 has got 7 years 2 months standing at the Bar and as such he is eligible for consideration. With regard to the selected candidates at Sl. Nos. 9 & 12 it is contended that though they are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors, they are eligible for consideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SUSHMA SURI v. GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [ (1999) 1 SCC 330 ]. With regard to the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 of the selection list it is contended that there was no material to show that she was employed in Bayer Pro Agro Company Limited in Hyderabad and that she was not having 7 years standing at the Bar as on the date of her application. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petitions challenging the selection since they have not suffered any prejudice on account of the application of amended rule 6 (4) to the selection process. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State is on the same lines. The other respondents/selected candidates in their separate counter-affidavits sought to justify the impugned action of the official respondents in applying the amended rule 6 (4) to the selection process as well as their selection for recruitment to the posts notified. Points for consideration: In the light of the above noticed pleadings, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court: (1) Whether the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is valid and enforceable? (2) Whether Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process already commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? (2) Whether Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process already commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? (3) Whether the selection of the candidates who have not satisfied the minimum age requirement of 35 years is valid? (4) Whether the persons who are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors by the date of submission of their applications are eligible for recruitment to the post of District Judges and whether the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9, 10 & 12 of the list of provisionally selected candidates is valid? (5) Whether the decision of the High Court that the candidates at Sl.No.5 and Sl.No.17 in the list of provisionally selected candidates have satisfied the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar in spite of the fact that they went abroad for higher studies after their enrolment on the rolls of State Bar Council, is correct? (6) Whether the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 in the list of provisionally selected candidates is liable to be declared illegal on the ground that she is in full-time employment with M/s. Pro Agro Seed Company Private Limited? Point No.1: Whether the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is valid and enforceable? It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction since the amendment was brought out merely on the directions of the High Court. The above contention is sought to be substantiated by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon para-2 of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The said paragraph shows that the Registrar (Recruitment), High Court addressed a letter dated 20.08.2011 informing the Government that the High Court had decided to amend the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 omitting minimum marks in viva-voce for direct recruitment to the categories of District Judges and Civil Judges and interviews to the posts of District & Sessions Judges and written test to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) were deferred by the respective committees till the amendments were made to Rule 6 (4) & (10) and accordingly requesting the Government to consider the amendments to the said Rules and pass necessary orders in the matter. Referring to the aforesaid paragraph in G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the very fact that the High Court had written to the State Government and not to the Governor would clearly show that the Governor was not even consulted and the impugned amendment was made only by the Government on the directions of the High Court without application of mind to the purpose of such amendment. It is contended that the High Court which is only a recommendatory body for making appointment under Article 233 of the Constitution of India has no power or authority to direct any amendment to the Rules under Article 309. It is also contended that the Governor alone is competent to make the rules under the proviso to Article 309 or to make any amendment to the Rules and as the tenor of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 shows that the Governor was not even consulted, the impugned G.O. was apparently made by the Government at the instance of the High Court and therefore on that ground alone the impugned amendment being unconstitutional is liable to be quashed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the allegation that the impugned amendment was made without application of mind has been categorically denied. The further allegation that the Governor was not consulted has also been denied and it is explained in the additional counter-affidavit that on receipt of the proposal from the High Court as to the proposed amendments, the Government after examination of the said proposal had circulated the file to the Governor through Secretary (Services) G.A.D./Chief Secretary/Minister (Law & Courts)/Chief Minister on 12.11.2011 and the orders had been passed by the Governor on the proposal on 14.11.2011. Thereafter, the G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 has been issued and a copy of the same has been sent to the Commissioner of Printing, Stationery and Stores Purchase (Printing Wing, Hyderabad) Department for publication in Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 19.11.2011. Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Governor of a State to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. In exercise of the said power, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 are made by the Governor. Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Governor of a State to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. In exercise of the said power, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 are made by the Governor. Similarly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was also issued by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf. It may be true that the amendment was proposed by the High Court and accordingly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 came to be issued. However there is no basis for the allegation that the amendment was effected merely at the instance of the High Court without even application of mind to the purpose of such amendment. As held in B.S. YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA AIR 1981 SC 561 ) though consultation with the High Court before framing and issuing rules for the judicial services under Article 309 is not a Constitutional requirement, such consultation is a meaningful prelude to the proposed action. It is also relevant to note that such consultation is not prohibited either expressly or by necessary implication under any law. That apart, the impugned amendment is only for the purpose of making the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules in conformity with the law declared by the Supreme Court. Since the said Rules relate to the appointment to the post of District Judges to be made in consultation with the High Court under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, the suggestion of the High Court for amendment was immediately accepted and the amendment was rightly made following due process of law. Apparently it was for a valid reason. The allegation that the impugned amendment was brought out by the Government at the instance of the High Court and that the Governor was not even consulted is also unfounded. Apparently it was for a valid reason. The allegation that the impugned amendment was brought out by the Government at the instance of the High Court and that the Governor was not even consulted is also unfounded. In the light of the particulars furnished in the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State which make it clear that the proposal was very much circulated to the Governor and the G.O. was issued only after receiving the orders of the Governor on the proposal, we are convinced that the impugned amendment has been properly effected in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India having regard to the context in which the amendment is needed. The further contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is unenforceable in the absence of amendment to Rule 6 (1) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 6 (1) being the substantial provision providing for minimum marks in viva-voce, even after the impugned amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) the High Court is bound to follow the requirement of the minimum marks for viva voce notified in the advertisement, dated 18/19.8.2010 in terms of Rule 6 (1) . It is contended that in the absence of corresponding amendment to Rule 6 (1), the requirement of minimum marks for viva voce still subsists and therefore it is mandatory to follow the requirement of minimum marks for viva voce notwithstanding the amendment to Rule 6 (4) . For proper appreciation of the above contention, we may refer to Rule 6 to the extent it is necessary. It may also be added that sub-rule (4) deals with recruitment to category of District Judges whereas sub-rule (10) deals with the category of Civil Judges. Since we are concerned in the present case only with the recruitment to the posts of District Judges, it would be suffice to notice sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6. 6. It may also be added that sub-rule (4) deals with recruitment to category of District Judges whereas sub-rule (10) deals with the category of Civil Judges. Since we are concerned in the present case only with the recruitment to the posts of District Judges, it would be suffice to notice sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6. 6. Methodology for conducting examination: (1) The High Court from time to time shall notify the number of vacancies for the category of District Judges to be appointed by direct recruitment indicating inter alia, the eligibility criteria, the syllabus, the number of marks allotted for written examination, the qualifying mark to be secured by a candidate, the number of marks allotted for the viva voce and the minimum to be secured therein by the candidate. Provided that owing to the contingency it shall be open to the High Court to conduct a screening test which shall be objective type before conducting the written examination followed up by viva voce after duly notifying the same. (2) While the written examination is meant to test the academic knowledge of the candidate, the viva voce is to test his communication skills; his tact; ability to defuse the situations to control the examination of witnesses and also lengthy irrelevant arguments and the like; and his general knowledge. (3) The syllabus for written examination shall be from out of the procedural as well as substantive laws, Local laws and Constitution of India. (4) The written examination shall invariably carry 80 marks limiting the viva voce to the remaining 20 marks. Provided that the candidate shall secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% for O.C. category, 35% for B.C. category and 30% for S.C. and S.T. category in the written examination and a minimum marks of 10 for O.C. category, 8 for B.C. category and 6 for S.C. and S.T. category in the viva voce. (5) to (10) …. …. … … … (emphasis supplied) On a careful reading of the above Rule, it appears to us that what is mandatory under Rule 6 (1) is to notify the number of vacancies. (5) to (10) …. …. … … … (emphasis supplied) On a careful reading of the above Rule, it appears to us that what is mandatory under Rule 6 (1) is to notify the number of vacancies. Though it is also necessary to indicate the other particulars specified therein, Rule 6 (1) cannot be held to be the substantial provision and Rule 6 (4) which prescribes the marks to be carried by the written examination and viva voce as well as the minimum qualifying marks, in our considered opinion, is not controlled by Rule 6 (1) . Therefore the contention that the amendment to Rule 6 (4) cannot be enforced in the absence of corresponding amendment to Rule 6 (1) is untenable. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner namely SHIVARAM A. SHIROOR v. RADHABAI SHANTRAM KOWSHIK (1984) 1 SCC 588 ), B. PREMANAND v. MOHAN KOIKAL (2011) 4 SCC 266 ), ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY (2011) 8 SCC 108 ) and GRID CORPN. OF ORISSA LTD. vs. EASTERN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS (2011) 11 SCC 334 ) wherein the principles of interpretation of statutes have been explained, have no bearing on the issue involved in the case on hand and the reliance upon the said decisions is out of context. Publication in Official Gazette whether mandatory? Yet another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the absence of publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette, the same is unenforceable and therefore the High Court ought not to have applied the same to the viva voce held from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011. Relying upon UNION OF INDIA v. GANESH DAS BHOJRAJ (2000) 9 SCC 461 ) the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned notification will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognized official channel namely the Official Gazette. Since G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was published in the Official Gazette only on 03.01.2012, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the date of viva-voce that was held from 7.12.2011 onwards, the impugned amendment was unenforceable. It is not disputed before this Court by the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 could not be published in the A.P. State Gazette by the date of viva voce due to administrative delay. It is not disputed before this Court by the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 could not be published in the A.P. State Gazette by the date of viva voce due to administrative delay. However, it is contended that it was uploaded to the official website of State Government on 16.11.2011 itself and therefore absence of publication in the A.P. State Gazette is immaterial. At the outset, we may refer to Section 8 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: “8. Publication of rule, regulation, etc., in Electronic Gazette:- Where any law provides that any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter shall be published in the Official Gazette, then, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette. Provided that where any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette, the date of publication shall be deemed to be the date of the Gazette which was first published in any form.” Section 2 (s) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines “electronic gazette” as “official gazette” published in the electronic form. On a reading of Section 8 together with Section 2 (s), it is clear that even where the law provides for publication in the official gazette, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the rules, regulations, etc., are published in the electric gazette i.e., in the electronic form. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners to show that any specific mode of publication, much less publication in the official gazette is prescribed under any law to enforce the A.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2007 made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any amendment to the said rules. In T. NARASIMHULU v. STATE OF A.P. (2010) 6 SCC 545 ) it was held that under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution though required to be published, if no specific mode was prescribed, publication in usual or recognized manner was permissible and the amendment did not become ineffective on account of non-publication in the official gazette. In T. NARASIMHULU v. STATE OF A.P. (2010) 6 SCC 545 ) it was held that under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution though required to be published, if no specific mode was prescribed, publication in usual or recognized manner was permissible and the amendment did not become ineffective on account of non-publication in the official gazette. In B.K.SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( AIR 1987 SC 1059 ), SONIC INDUSTRIES, RAJKOT v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF RAJKOT ( AIR 1986 SC 1518 ) and HARLA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN ( AIR 1951 SC 467 ), it is explained that the object of the publication is to enable the public to acquire knowledge. It is also held in RAI VIMAL KRISHNA v. STATE OF BIHAR (2003) 6 SCC 401 ) that where equally efficacious, if not better modes of publication are available it would be ridiculous to insist on an obsolete form of publication as if it were a ritual. In the light of the legal position noticed above, it is clear that the object of publication is only to draw the attention of the persons sought to be effected by it. Hence, there is no substance in the contention on behalf of the petitioners that publication in the Official Gazette is mandatory. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the absence of any provision prescribing specific mode of publication, what is required is only the publication in a reasonable manner. Admittedly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was uploaded to the official website of the State Government on 16.11.2011 itself and about three weeks thereafter the viva voce was held. As could be seen from the pleadings in the writ petition, all the petitioners had knowledge about the impugned amendment by the date of viva voce. Once it is established that they are aware of the amendment and its purport, as held in RAI VIMAL KRISHNA’S case (11 supra) no special sanctity need be given to the mode of publication. Therefore, non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette by the date of viva voce is of no consequence and on that ground the impugned amendment cannot be held to have become ineffective or inoperative. Therefore, non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette by the date of viva voce is of no consequence and on that ground the impugned amendment cannot be held to have become ineffective or inoperative. Thus in our considered opinion all the three contentions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners with regard to the validity and enforceability of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 are untenable. Point No.2: Whether Rule 6 (4) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? Leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.34683 of 2011 vehemently contended that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) to the selection process in question is impermissible under law in the light of the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 ), HEMANI MALHOTRA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2008) 7 SCC 11) and RAMESH KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2010) 3 SCC 104 ) . On the other hand, Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of A.P. submitted that the impugned amendment was necessary so as to implement the law declared by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA (2002) 4 SCC 247 ) wherein the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission for deletion of minimum marks for viva voce had been accepted. Referring to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel submitted that in fact it is not a case of change of rules as sought to be contended by the writ petitioners, but the High Court has only implemented the law declared by the Supreme Court. It is further contended that the facts in the case on hand are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances under which K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) were decided by the Supreme Court and therefore the ratio laid down therein has no relevance to the case on hand. It is further contended that the facts in the case on hand are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances under which K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) were decided by the Supreme Court and therefore the ratio laid down therein has no relevance to the case on hand. Sri L. Ravichander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the provisionally selected candidates by name Sabbi Premavathi, who is shown at Sl.No.2 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that no prejudice was caused to any of the writ petitioners since the deletion of prescription of minimum marks for viva voce has merely enlarged the scope of consideration among the candidates qualified in the written examination. Relying upon A.M. ALLISON v. B.L. SEN ( AIR 1957 SC 227 ), the learned Senior Counsel contended that even assuming that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) in the midst of the selection process is illegal, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the Court is satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. While submitting that non-application of the amended rule to the selection process in question would result in another illegality of acting contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel urged that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. In support of the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon RAJ KUMAR SONI v. STATE OF U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635 ) and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA v. GREENWORLD CORPORATION, PARWANOO (2009) 7 SCC 69 ) wherein it is held that even if there was any technical violation of the rules of natural justice, the interference is not warranted as such interference would result in resurrection of an illegal order. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2003) 6 SCC 545 ) in support of his submission that this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order where quashing of such illegal order would revive another illegal one. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2003) 6 SCC 545 ) in support of his submission that this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order where quashing of such illegal order would revive another illegal one. Relying upon STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. DISTRICT JUDGE, UNNAO ( AIR 1984 SC 1401 ) and ROSHAN DEEN v. PREETI LAL (2002) 1 SCC 100 ) the learned Senior Counsel further contended that the jurisdiction to be exercised under Article 226 is to advance justice but not to thwart it. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon CHINGLEPUT BOTTLERS v. MAJESTIC BOTTLING COMPANY ( AIR 1984 SC 1030 ) and STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR CHATTERJEE (2010) 11 SCC 694 ) in support of his contention that no Mandamus can be issued compelling the respondents to act contrary to law. Sri S. Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for another provisionally selected candidate by name Majji Babitha, who is shown at Sl.No.16 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra) and HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra) the rights accrued to the selected candidates were taken away by virtue of the change in the eligibility criteria resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioners therein, whereas in the instant case the rule has been amended even prior to the viva voce and the same has been applied equally to all the candidates qualified in the written examination. According to the learned counsel, since the selection process was still going on and no right as such was created in favour of the writ petitioners or any other candidate for appointment, the application of the amended rule was not to the prejudice to anybody and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted. In support of his submission that a decision is a precedent on its own facts, the learned counsel has relied upon STATE OF ORISSA v. MD. ILLIYAS (2006) 1 SCC 275 ) and UNION OF INDIA v. DHANWANTI DEVI (1996) 6 SCC 44 ) . In support of his submission that a decision is a precedent on its own facts, the learned counsel has relied upon STATE OF ORISSA v. MD. ILLIYAS (2006) 1 SCC 275 ) and UNION OF INDIA v. DHANWANTI DEVI (1996) 6 SCC 44 ) . Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidate by name Alapati Giridhar who is shown at Sl.No.11 in the list of the provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that deletion of minimum marks for viva-voce by amending rule 6 (4) cannot be treated as a change of rule in the midst of the selection process. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in fact the advertisement dated 18/19.08.2010 which was issued contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court was irregular and the said irregularity has been cured by application of the amended rule 6 (4) to the selections in question. Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidate by name N. Narsinga Rao, who is shown at Sl.No.1 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, relied upon M/S. SHARMA TRANSPORT v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. ( AIR 2002 SC 322 ) to substantiate his contention that the impugned action cannot be held to be either arbitrary or discriminatory since all the persons who are qualified in the written examination are similarly situated and that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) has similarly effected all of them. It is also contended that all the candidates qualified in the written examination including the writ petitioners appeared for viva voce with full knowledge that there was no need to obtain any minimum marks in viva voce and that the selection would be made on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and viva voce and therefore they cannot now challenge the selections made in terms of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The learned counsel further submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) has no bearing at all for determination of the issue involved in the case on hand. The learned counsel further submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) has no bearing at all for determination of the issue involved in the case on hand. We have also heard Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State, Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, Sri B. Purushotham Reddy and Sri M. Sreerama Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidates by name G. Gopi, Moulana Junaid Ahmed and Dhuli Thirumala Rao respectively, who are shown at Sl.Nos.14, 8 & 15 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011 and whose selection is challenged on the ground that they failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in viva voce. Judgment :- G. Rohini, J. The provisional selection of 17 candidates for recruitment to the posts of District & Sessions Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment in the A.P. Judicial Service is under challenge in all these writ petitions. The facts in brief are as under: By notification dated 10.08.2010 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh notified 18 vacancies for the year 2010 in the category of District & Sessions Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment in the A.P. Judicial Service. Accordingly, the Government of A.P. issued an advertisement in the newspapers, dated 18.08.2010 and 19.08.2010 inviting applications for appointment to the said 18 posts. The last date for receipt of applications was 3.9.2010. The qualifications and age mentioned in the advertisement are as under: “Qualifications and Age: The applicant for the above said post should be (a) an Advocate of not less than seven years standing at the Bar (b) must not have completed 45 years of age on the first day of August, 2010 (relaxation by three years in the upper age limit in respect of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) and (c) of sound health and active habits and free from any body defect or infirmity which render him/her unfit for such appointment." The mode of examination, syllabus, minimum qualifying marks to be secured and other particulars are also specified in the notification. Some of the particulars, which are necessary for the purpose of the present case are: “Mode of Examination etc. Some of the particulars, which are necessary for the purpose of the present case are: “Mode of Examination etc. Selection to the above posts shall be by written examination comprising (a) Objective questions with multiple choice and (b) Subjective/Narrative, which is for 80 marks, followed by an interview. … … … … … … … Viva-Voce (Interview) : The Viva-voce is for 20 marks. … … … … … … … Minimum qualifying marks to be secured: The candidate shall secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% for OC category, 35% for BC category, and 30% for SC and ST categories in the written examination and minimum marks of 10 for OC category, 8 for BC category and 6 for SC and ST categories in the viva voce.” Altogether 2734 applications were received by the State Government and the same were forwarded to the High Court. After scrutiny of the applications, the High Court sent hall-tickets to all the eligible candidates informing them that the written examination would be held on 23.01.2011. However it was postponed and the written examination was held on 6.3.2011 for which 1743 candidates had appeared. On evaluation of the answer sheets, 52 candidates were declared to have been qualified by notification dated 8.8.2011 and they were required to appear for viva-voce from 7.12.2011 onwards. In the meanwhile by G.O.Ms.No.132, Law (LA&J SC.F) Department, dated 16.11.2011, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 have been amended in terms of the resolution dated 1.8.2011 passed by the Administrative Committee of High Court of Andhra Pradesh resolving to delete the requirement of minimum marks in viva-voce. Thus by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, the expression ‘and a minimum marks of 10 for OC category, 8 for BC category and 6 for SC & ST category in the viva-voce’ in the provisos to sub-rules (4) & (10) of Rule 6 of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 has been omitted. The said G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was uploaded to the Official Website of the Government of A.P. on 16.11.2011 itself. On 17.11.2011 it was resolved by the Administrative Committee of the High Court of A.P. to conduct interview to the 52 qualified candidates by applying Rule 6 (4) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. Accordingly, the interviews were conducted from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 as per schedule and 17 candidates were declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment. On 17.11.2011 it was resolved by the Administrative Committee of the High Court of A.P. to conduct interview to the 52 qualified candidates by applying Rule 6 (4) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. Accordingly, the interviews were conducted from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 as per schedule and 17 candidates were declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment. One vacancy reserved for ST (women) remained unfilled as none was qualified. The list of 17 provisionally selected candidates was approved by the Administrative Committee and also the Full Court of the High Court of A.P. on 16.12.2011. On 22.12.2011 the High Court of A.P. published the following list of candidates who are declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment to 17 posts of District and Sessions Judge (Entry Level) by direct recruitment: On 30.12.2011 the High Court sent the above said list of provisionally selected candidates to the Government for issuing necessary orders of appointment. At that stage, these four writ petitions came to be filed. Whereas the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34683 of 2011, 34805 of 2011 and 894 of 2012 are the candidates who were qualified in the written examination, PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 is filed by a practicing advocate as a Public Interest Litigation assailing the selection of only one candidate who is shown at Sl.No.5 of the list of provisionally selected candidates. The petitioner in W.P.No.34683 of 2011 by name Tirumala Devi Eada, seeks a declaration that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and to quash the same. She also prayed for setting aside the selection of the respondents 3 to 19 therein i.e., all the provisionally selected candidates and to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to select and appoint her to the post of District & Sessions Judge (entry level) . In the alternative the petitioner seeks a declaration that the amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is only prospective in nature and that the same shall not be made applicable to the selection process that was started pursuant to the notification dated 19.8.2010 and consequently to declare the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in not taking into account the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce is illegal and contrary to Rule 6 (1) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. W.P.No.34805 of 2011 is filed by one B. Sai Kalyan Chakravarthy seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in applying G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 to the recruitment of the District & Sessions Judges pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 is arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the selection list published vide Notification dated 22.12.2011. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to finalize the selections as per the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 2.8.2008 without reference to the amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The petitioner in W.P.No.894 of 2012 by name Aruna Sarika seeks a declaration that the application of the amended rule vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 to the selection process that was initiated on 19.8.2010 is illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently the petitioner seeks a direction to nullify the selection process from the stage of the interviews and then to make fresh selection as per the unamended Rules under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 2.8.2008. In PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 the selection of only one candidate i.e., the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is assailed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012 are identical and almost all the provisionally selected candidates are arrayed as respondents. It is primarily contended in the said three writ petitions that Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 by virtue of which the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in viva voce is deleted cannot be made applicable to the selections in question since the selection process has already commenced pursuant to the advertisement dated 18/19.08.2010. Consequently the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 8, 11, 14, 15 & 16 of the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, who secured less than the required minimum marks, is sought to be declared illegal. Similarly the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16 & 17 has also been challenged on various other grounds. Similarly the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16 & 17 has also been challenged on various other grounds. In PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 the selection of the respondent No.4 therein (the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011) alone is challenged alleging that he had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria since he did not have the seven years standing at the Bar as on the date of the notification inviting applications for appointment. Since a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents as to the very maintainability of PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012, we propose to deal with the contentions advanced in the said writ petition a little later after adverting to the common issues involved in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012. For the sake of convenience, the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge, shall hereinafter be referred to as per their respective serial numbers in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011. It may also be mentioned that the selection of four candidates namely Chinthalapudi Purushotham Kumar, Sujana Kalasikam, B.R. Madhusudana Rao and Gokavarapu Srinivas who are shown at Sl.Nos.3, 6, 7 & 13 respectively in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is not challenged in any one of the writ petitions. The said fact has not been disputed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The grounds of challenge in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012: In W.P.No.34683 of 2011, it is contended that the amendment to Rules 6 (4) & (10) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 which has been effected by the Government but not the Governor solely in terms of the directions by the High Court of A.P. is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the impugned amendment ought not to have been applied to viva-voce held from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 firstly for the reason that the rules cannot be changed after the commencement of the selection process and secondly for the reason that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was not published in the Official Gazette by the date of viva-voce held from 7.12.2011 onwards. It is further contended that the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who has not satisfied the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar is illegal. The selection of the said candidate is assailed also on the ground that he has not completed the minimum age limit of 35 years. The selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9 & 16 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is also assailed on the very same ground that they have not completed the minimum age limit of 35 years. Similarly the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who is allegedly in full-time employment with a Private Limited Company and the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9, 10 & 12 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors as on the date of submission of their applications is questioned contending that they are ineligible for appointment since they are already in service of the State Government. The allegation against the candidate at Sl.No.17 is that she went abroad in 2001 and returned back to India only in December, 2004. Hence the said period ought not to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar. It is also contended that in the absence of amendment to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 which is the substantial provision, the impugned amendment to Rules 6 (4) & 6 (10) is unenforceable. In W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012 it is contended that the entire selection list is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the impugned amendment was not in existence by the date of the advertisement, dated 18/19.8.2010. It is also contended that the impugned amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, is irrational and unconstitutional since it has virtually rendered the process of viva-voce an empty formality. Case of the respondents: Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the High Court of A.P. Separate counter-affidavits have also been filed by all the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge. Case of the respondents: Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the High Court of A.P. Separate counter-affidavits have also been filed by all the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge. The Registrar (Recruitment) filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the High Court of A.P. stating that the Registry of the High Court placed an office note before the Chief Justice about the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (1) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (1992) 1 SCC 119 ], ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (2) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (1993) 4 SCC 288 ], ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ], RAMESH KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [ (2010) 3 SCC 104 ] and also the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission with regard to deletion of the minimum marks in the viva-voce in relation to direct recruitment to the posts of District Judges. As directed by the Chief Justice, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court in the meeting held on 1.8.2011 and on consideration of the decisions of the Supreme Court it was resolved by the Committee to amend Rule 6 (4) and 6 (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. The minutes of the Administrative Committee was circulated to all the Judges and on receipt of their views a note was placed before the Chief Justice on 19.8.2011 and the same was approved. Accordingly, by letter dated 20.08.2011 the Government was requested to amend Rule 6 (4) and 6 (10) . The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 amending Rule 6 (4) & (10) and the said amendment was uploaded to the official website of the Government of A.P. immediately for the information of all the candidates. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee in the meeting held on 17.11.2011 in which it was resolved to send call letters to 52 eligible candidates and to apply the amended Rule 6 (4) so as to implement the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission which had been accepted by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ]. As resolved by the Administrative Committee, information was sent to the 52 qualified candidates requiring them to appear for viva-voce from 7.12.2011 onwards and the final merit list was prepared after the interviews were conducted and it was published on 22.12.2011. While stating that the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission for deletion of minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce was accepted by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ] and thus it became the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is contended that the respondents 1 & 2 are bound to implement the same. Hence the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) was brought in under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 and it was rightly made applicable to the selection process in question. So far as publication in Official Gazette is concerned, it is pleaded that due to administrative delay G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was published in the Official Gazette only on 3.1.2012. However, it is contended that the petitioners as well as all the candidates applied in response to the advertisement dated 18/19.8.2010 are deemed in law to have knowledge of the amendment to Rule 6 since the same was uploaded to the official website of the State Government much prior to the viva-voce. It is further contended that uploading to the official website to which anybody can have access, has to be construed as a reasonable mode of publication of the amendment and therefore non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in A.P. State Gazette did not vitiate the selection process. It is explained that the impugned amendment to Rule 6 (4) is only for the purpose of giving better chance to the candidates who have secured higher marks in the written examination and to qualify them for selection and such amendment which has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners but on the other hand has merely widened the field of consideration for selection cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. With regard to the contention that the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of the provisionally selected candidates did not possess the required standing of 7 years at the Bar is concerned, it is explained that the period of 9 months during which he pursued his further studies i.e., Master of Laws in U.S.A. need not be deducted since no provision of the Advocates Act prohibits any advocate from pursuing further studies in Law. Thus it is contended that as on the date of his application the candidate at Sl.No.5 has got 7 years 2 months standing at the Bar and as such he is eligible for consideration. With regard to the selected candidates at Sl. Nos. 9 & 12 it is contended that though they are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors, they are eligible for consideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SUSHMA SURI v. GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [ (1999) 1 SCC 330 ]. With regard to the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 of the selection list it is contended that there was no material to show that she was employed in Bayer Pro Agro Company Limited in Hyderabad and that she was not having 7 years standing at the Bar as on the date of her application. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petitions challenging the selection since they have not suffered any prejudice on account of the application of amended rule 6 (4) to the selection process. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State is on the same lines. The other respondents/selected candidates in their separate counter-affidavits sought to justify the impugned action of the official respondents in applying the amended rule 6 (4) to the selection process as well as their selection for recruitment to the posts notified. Points for consideration: In the light of the above noticed pleadings, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court: (1) Whether the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is valid and enforceable? (2) Whether Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process already commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? (2) Whether Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process already commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? (3) Whether the selection of the candidates who have not satisfied the minimum age requirement of 35 years is valid? (4) Whether the persons who are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors by the date of submission of their applications are eligible for recruitment to the post of District Judges and whether the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9, 10 & 12 of the list of provisionally selected candidates is valid? (5) Whether the decision of the High Court that the candidates at Sl.No.5 and Sl.No.17 in the list of provisionally selected candidates have satisfied the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar in spite of the fact that they went abroad for higher studies after their enrolment on the rolls of State Bar Council, is correct? (6) Whether the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 in the list of provisionally selected candidates is liable to be declared illegal on the ground that she is in full-time employment with M/s. Pro Agro Seed Company Private Limited? Point No.1: Whether the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is valid and enforceable? It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction since the amendment was brought out merely on the directions of the High Court. The above contention is sought to be substantiated by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon para-2 of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The said paragraph shows that the Registrar (Recruitment), High Court addressed a letter dated 20.08.2011 informing the Government that the High Court had decided to amend the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 omitting minimum marks in viva-voce for direct recruitment to the categories of District Judges and Civil Judges and interviews to the posts of District & Sessions Judges and written test to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) were deferred by the respective committees till the amendments were made to Rule 6 (4) & (10) and accordingly requesting the Government to consider the amendments to the said Rules and pass necessary orders in the matter. Referring to the aforesaid paragraph in G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the very fact that the High Court had written to the State Government and not to the Governor would clearly show that the Governor was not even consulted and the impugned amendment was made only by the Government on the directions of the High Court without application of mind to the purpose of such amendment. It is contended that the High Court which is only a recommendatory body for making appointment under Article 233 of the Constitution of India has no power or authority to direct any amendment to the Rules under Article 309. It is also contended that the Governor alone is competent to make the rules under the proviso to Article 309 or to make any amendment to the Rules and as the tenor of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 shows that the Governor was not even consulted, the impugned G.O. was apparently made by the Government at the instance of the High Court and therefore on that ground alone the impugned amendment being unconstitutional is liable to be quashed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the allegation that the impugned amendment was made without application of mind has been categorically denied. The further allegation that the Governor was not consulted has also been denied and it is explained in the additional counter-affidavit that on receipt of the proposal from the High Court as to the proposed amendments, the Government after examination of the said proposal had circulated the file to the Governor through Secretary (Services) G.A.D./Chief Secretary/Minister (Law & Courts)/Chief Minister on 12.11.2011 and the orders had been passed by the Governor on the proposal on 14.11.2011. Thereafter, the G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 has been issued and a copy of the same has been sent to the Commissioner of Printing, Stationery and Stores Purchase (Printing Wing, Hyderabad) Department for publication in Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 19.11.2011. Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Governor of a State to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. In exercise of the said power, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 are made by the Governor. Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Governor of a State to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. In exercise of the said power, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 are made by the Governor. Similarly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was also issued by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf. It may be true that the amendment was proposed by the High Court and accordingly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 came to be issued. However there is no basis for the allegation that the amendment was effected merely at the instance of the High Court without even application of mind to the purpose of such amendment. As held in B.S. YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA AIR 1981 SC 561 ) though consultation with the High Court before framing and issuing rules for the judicial services under Article 309 is not a Constitutional requirement, such consultation is a meaningful prelude to the proposed action. It is also relevant to note that such consultation is not prohibited either expressly or by necessary implication under any law. That apart, the impugned amendment is only for the purpose of making the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules in conformity with the law declared by the Supreme Court. Since the said Rules relate to the appointment to the post of District Judges to be made in consultation with the High Court under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, the suggestion of the High Court for amendment was immediately accepted and the amendment was rightly made following due process of law. Apparently it was for a valid reason. The allegation that the impugned amendment was brought out by the Government at the instance of the High Court and that the Governor was not even consulted is also unfounded. Apparently it was for a valid reason. The allegation that the impugned amendment was brought out by the Government at the instance of the High Court and that the Governor was not even consulted is also unfounded. In the light of the particulars furnished in the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State which make it clear that the proposal was very much circulated to the Governor and the G.O. was issued only after receiving the orders of the Governor on the proposal, we are convinced that the impugned amendment has been properly effected in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India having regard to the context in which the amendment is needed. The further contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is unenforceable in the absence of amendment to Rule 6 (1) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 6 (1) being the substantial provision providing for minimum marks in viva-voce, even after the impugned amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) the High Court is bound to follow the requirement of the minimum marks for viva voce notified in the advertisement, dated 18/19.8.2010 in terms of Rule 6 (1) . It is contended that in the absence of corresponding amendment to Rule 6 (1), the requirement of minimum marks for viva voce still subsists and therefore it is mandatory to follow the requirement of minimum marks for viva voce notwithstanding the amendment to Rule 6 (4) . For proper appreciation of the above contention, we may refer to Rule 6 to the extent it is necessary. It may also be added that sub-rule (4) deals with recruitment to category of District Judges whereas sub-rule (10) deals with the category of Civil Judges. Since we are concerned in the present case only with the recruitment to the posts of District Judges, it would be suffice to notice sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6. 6. It may also be added that sub-rule (4) deals with recruitment to category of District Judges whereas sub-rule (10) deals with the category of Civil Judges. Since we are concerned in the present case only with the recruitment to the posts of District Judges, it would be suffice to notice sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6. 6. Methodology for conducting examination: (1) The High Court from time to time shall notify the number of vacancies for the category of District Judges to be appointed by direct recruitment indicating inter alia, the eligibility criteria, the syllabus, the number of marks allotted for written examination, the qualifying mark to be secured by a candidate, the number of marks allotted for the viva voce and the minimum to be secured therein by the candidate. Provided that owing to the contingency it shall be open to the High Court to conduct a screening test which shall be objective type before conducting the written examination followed up by viva voce after duly notifying the same. (2) While the written examination is meant to test the academic knowledge of the candidate, the viva voce is to test his communication skills; his tact; ability to defuse the situations to control the examination of witnesses and also lengthy irrelevant arguments and the like; and his general knowledge. (3) The syllabus for written examination shall be from out of the procedural as well as substantive laws, Local laws and Constitution of India. (4) The written examination shall invariably carry 80 marks limiting the viva voce to the remaining 20 marks. Provided that the candidate shall secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% for O.C. category, 35% for B.C. category and 30% for S.C. and S.T. category in the written examination and a minimum marks of 10 for O.C. category, 8 for B.C. category and 6 for S.C. and S.T. category in the viva voce. (5) to (10) …. …. … … … (emphasis supplied) On a careful reading of the above Rule, it appears to us that what is mandatory under Rule 6 (1) is to notify the number of vacancies. (5) to (10) …. …. … … … (emphasis supplied) On a careful reading of the above Rule, it appears to us that what is mandatory under Rule 6 (1) is to notify the number of vacancies. Though it is also necessary to indicate the other particulars specified therein, Rule 6 (1) cannot be held to be the substantial provision and Rule 6 (4) which prescribes the marks to be carried by the written examination and viva voce as well as the minimum qualifying marks, in our considered opinion, is not controlled by Rule 6 (1) . Therefore the contention that the amendment to Rule 6 (4) cannot be enforced in the absence of corresponding amendment to Rule 6 (1) is untenable. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner namely SHIVARAM A. SHIROOR v. RADHABAI SHANTRAM KOWSHIK (1984) 1 SCC 588 ), B. PREMANAND v. MOHAN KOIKAL (2011) 4 SCC 266 ), ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY (2011) 8 SCC 108 ) and GRID CORPN. OF ORISSA LTD. vs. EASTERN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS (2011) 11 SCC 334 ) wherein the principles of interpretation of statutes have been explained, have no bearing on the issue involved in the case on hand and the reliance upon the said decisions is out of context. Publication in Official Gazette whether mandatory? Yet another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the absence of publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette, the same is unenforceable and therefore the High Court ought not to have applied the same to the viva voce held from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011. Relying upon UNION OF INDIA v. GANESH DAS BHOJRAJ (2000) 9 SCC 461 ) the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned notification will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognized official channel namely the Official Gazette. Since G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was published in the Official Gazette only on 03.01.2012, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the date of viva-voce that was held from 7.12.2011 onwards, the impugned amendment was unenforceable. It is not disputed before this Court by the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 could not be published in the A.P. State Gazette by the date of viva voce due to administrative delay. It is not disputed before this Court by the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 could not be published in the A.P. State Gazette by the date of viva voce due to administrative delay. However, it is contended that it was uploaded to the official website of State Government on 16.11.2011 itself and therefore absence of publication in the A.P. State Gazette is immaterial. At the outset, we may refer to Section 8 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: “8. Publication of rule, regulation, etc., in Electronic Gazette:- Where any law provides that any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter shall be published in the Official Gazette, then, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette. Provided that where any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette, the date of publication shall be deemed to be the date of the Gazette which was first published in any form.” Section 2 (s) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines “electronic gazette” as “official gazette” published in the electronic form. On a reading of Section 8 together with Section 2 (s), it is clear that even where the law provides for publication in the official gazette, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the rules, regulations, etc., are published in the electric gazette i.e., in the electronic form. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners to show that any specific mode of publication, much less publication in the official gazette is prescribed under any law to enforce the A.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2007 made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any amendment to the said rules. In T. NARASIMHULU v. STATE OF A.P. (2010) 6 SCC 545 ) it was held that under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution though required to be published, if no specific mode was prescribed, publication in usual or recognized manner was permissible and the amendment did not become ineffective on account of non-publication in the official gazette. In T. NARASIMHULU v. STATE OF A.P. (2010) 6 SCC 545 ) it was held that under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution though required to be published, if no specific mode was prescribed, publication in usual or recognized manner was permissible and the amendment did not become ineffective on account of non-publication in the official gazette. In B.K.SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( AIR 1987 SC 1059 ), SONIC INDUSTRIES, RAJKOT v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF RAJKOT ( AIR 1986 SC 1518 ) and HARLA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN ( AIR 1951 SC 467 ), it is explained that the object of the publication is to enable the public to acquire knowledge. It is also held in RAI VIMAL KRISHNA v. STATE OF BIHAR (2003) 6 SCC 401 ) that where equally efficacious, if not better modes of publication are available it would be ridiculous to insist on an obsolete form of publication as if it were a ritual. In the light of the legal position noticed above, it is clear that the object of publication is only to draw the attention of the persons sought to be effected by it. Hence, there is no substance in the contention on behalf of the petitioners that publication in the Official Gazette is mandatory. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the absence of any provision prescribing specific mode of publication, what is required is only the publication in a reasonable manner. Admittedly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was uploaded to the official website of the State Government on 16.11.2011 itself and about three weeks thereafter the viva voce was held. As could be seen from the pleadings in the writ petition, all the petitioners had knowledge about the impugned amendment by the date of viva voce. Once it is established that they are aware of the amendment and its purport, as held in RAI VIMAL KRISHNA’S case (11 supra) no special sanctity need be given to the mode of publication. Therefore, non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette by the date of viva voce is of no consequence and on that ground the impugned amendment cannot be held to have become ineffective or inoperative. Therefore, non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette by the date of viva voce is of no consequence and on that ground the impugned amendment cannot be held to have become ineffective or inoperative. Thus in our considered opinion all the three contentions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners with regard to the validity and enforceability of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 are untenable. Point No.2: Whether Rule 6 (4) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? Leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.34683 of 2011 vehemently contended that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) to the selection process in question is impermissible under law in the light of the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 ), HEMANI MALHOTRA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2008) 7 SCC 11) and RAMESH KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2010) 3 SCC 104 ) . On the other hand, Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of A.P. submitted that the impugned amendment was necessary so as to implement the law declared by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA (2002) 4 SCC 247 ) wherein the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission for deletion of minimum marks for viva voce had been accepted. Referring to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel submitted that in fact it is not a case of change of rules as sought to be contended by the writ petitioners, but the High Court has only implemented the law declared by the Supreme Court. It is further contended that the facts in the case on hand are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances under which K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) were decided by the Supreme Court and therefore the ratio laid down therein has no relevance to the case on hand. It is further contended that the facts in the case on hand are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances under which K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) were decided by the Supreme Court and therefore the ratio laid down therein has no relevance to the case on hand. Sri L. Ravichander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the provisionally selected candidates by name Sabbi Premavathi, who is shown at Sl.No.2 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that no prejudice was caused to any of the writ petitioners since the deletion of prescription of minimum marks for viva voce has merely enlarged the scope of consideration among the candidates qualified in the written examination. Relying upon A.M. ALLISON v. B.L. SEN ( AIR 1957 SC 227 ), the learned Senior Counsel contended that even assuming that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) in the midst of the selection process is illegal, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the Court is satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. While submitting that non-application of the amended rule to the selection process in question would result in another illegality of acting contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel urged that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. In support of the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon RAJ KUMAR SONI v. STATE OF U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635 ) and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA v. GREENWORLD CORPORATION, PARWANOO (2009) 7 SCC 69 ) wherein it is held that even if there was any technical violation of the rules of natural justice, the interference is not warranted as such interference would result in resurrection of an illegal order. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2003) 6 SCC 545 ) in support of his submission that this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order where quashing of such illegal order would revive another illegal one. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2003) 6 SCC 545 ) in support of his submission that this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order where quashing of such illegal order would revive another illegal one. Relying upon STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. DISTRICT JUDGE, UNNAO ( AIR 1984 SC 1401 ) and ROSHAN DEEN v. PREETI LAL (2002) 1 SCC 100 ) the learned Senior Counsel further contended that the jurisdiction to be exercised under Article 226 is to advance justice but not to thwart it. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon CHINGLEPUT BOTTLERS v. MAJESTIC BOTTLING COMPANY ( AIR 1984 SC 1030 ) and STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR CHATTERJEE (2010) 11 SCC 694 ) in support of his contention that no Mandamus can be issued compelling the respondents to act contrary to law. Sri S. Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for another provisionally selected candidate by name Majji Babitha, who is shown at Sl.No.16 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra) and HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra) the rights accrued to the selected candidates were taken away by virtue of the change in the eligibility criteria resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioners therein, whereas in the instant case the rule has been amended even prior to the viva voce and the same has been applied equally to all the candidates qualified in the written examination. According to the learned counsel, since the selection process was still going on and no right as such was created in favour of the writ petitioners or any other candidate for appointment, the application of the amended rule was not to the prejudice to anybody and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted. In support of his submission that a decision is a precedent on its own facts, the learned counsel has relied upon STATE OF ORISSA v. MD. ILLIYAS (2006) 1 SCC 275 ) and UNION OF INDIA v. DHANWANTI DEVI (1996) 6 SCC 44 ) . In support of his submission that a decision is a precedent on its own facts, the learned counsel has relied upon STATE OF ORISSA v. MD. ILLIYAS (2006) 1 SCC 275 ) and UNION OF INDIA v. DHANWANTI DEVI (1996) 6 SCC 44 ) . Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidate by name Alapati Giridhar who is shown at Sl.No.11 in the list of the provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that deletion of minimum marks for viva-voce by amending rule 6 (4) cannot be treated as a change of rule in the midst of the selection process. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in fact the advertisement dated 18/19.08.2010 which was issued contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court was irregular and the said irregularity has been cured by application of the amended rule 6 (4) to the selections in question. Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidate by name N. Narsinga Rao, who is shown at Sl.No.1 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, relied upon M/S. SHARMA TRANSPORT v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. ( AIR 2002 SC 322 ) to substantiate his contention that the impugned action cannot be held to be either arbitrary or discriminatory since all the persons who are qualified in the written examination are similarly situated and that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) has similarly effected all of them. It is also contended that all the candidates qualified in the written examination including the writ petitioners appeared for viva voce with full knowledge that there was no need to obtain any minimum marks in viva voce and that the selection would be made on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and viva voce and therefore they cannot now challenge the selections made in terms of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The learned counsel further submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) has no bearing at all for determination of the issue involved in the case on hand. The learned counsel further submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) has no bearing at all for determination of the issue involved in the case on hand. We have also heard Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State, Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, Sri B. Purushotham Reddy and Sri M. Sreerama Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidates by name G. Gopi, Moulana Junaid Ahmed and Dhuli Thirumala Rao respectively, who are shown at Sl.Nos.14, 8 & 15 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011 and whose selection is challenged on the ground that they failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in viva voce. Judgment :- G. Rohini, J. The provisional selection of 17 candidates for recruitment to the posts of District & Sessions Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment in the A.P. Judicial Service is under challenge in all these writ petitions. The facts in brief are as under: By notification dated 10.08.2010 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh notified 18 vacancies for the year 2010 in the category of District & Sessions Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment in the A.P. Judicial Service. Accordingly, the Government of A.P. issued an advertisement in the newspapers, dated 18.08.2010 and 19.08.2010 inviting applications for appointment to the said 18 posts. The last date for receipt of applications was 3.9.2010. The qualifications and age mentioned in the advertisement are as under: “Qualifications and Age: The applicant for the above said post should be (a) an Advocate of not less than seven years standing at the Bar (b) must not have completed 45 years of age on the first day of August, 2010 (relaxation by three years in the upper age limit in respect of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) and (c) of sound health and active habits and free from any body defect or infirmity which render him/her unfit for such appointment." The mode of examination, syllabus, minimum qualifying marks to be secured and other particulars are also specified in the notification. Some of the particulars, which are necessary for the purpose of the present case are: “Mode of Examination etc. Some of the particulars, which are necessary for the purpose of the present case are: “Mode of Examination etc. Selection to the above posts shall be by written examination comprising (a) Objective questions with multiple choice and (b) Subjective/Narrative, which is for 80 marks, followed by an interview. … … … … … … … Viva-Voce (Interview) : The Viva-voce is for 20 marks. … … … … … … … Minimum qualifying marks to be secured: The candidate shall secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% for OC category, 35% for BC category, and 30% for SC and ST categories in the written examination and minimum marks of 10 for OC category, 8 for BC category and 6 for SC and ST categories in the viva voce.” Altogether 2734 applications were received by the State Government and the same were forwarded to the High Court. After scrutiny of the applications, the High Court sent hall-tickets to all the eligible candidates informing them that the written examination would be held on 23.01.2011. However it was postponed and the written examination was held on 6.3.2011 for which 1743 candidates had appeared. On evaluation of the answer sheets, 52 candidates were declared to have been qualified by notification dated 8.8.2011 and they were required to appear for viva-voce from 7.12.2011 onwards. In the meanwhile by G.O.Ms.No.132, Law (LA&J SC.F) Department, dated 16.11.2011, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 have been amended in terms of the resolution dated 1.8.2011 passed by the Administrative Committee of High Court of Andhra Pradesh resolving to delete the requirement of minimum marks in viva-voce. Thus by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, the expression ‘and a minimum marks of 10 for OC category, 8 for BC category and 6 for SC & ST category in the viva-voce’ in the provisos to sub-rules (4) & (10) of Rule 6 of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 has been omitted. The said G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was uploaded to the Official Website of the Government of A.P. on 16.11.2011 itself. On 17.11.2011 it was resolved by the Administrative Committee of the High Court of A.P. to conduct interview to the 52 qualified candidates by applying Rule 6 (4) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. Accordingly, the interviews were conducted from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 as per schedule and 17 candidates were declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment. On 17.11.2011 it was resolved by the Administrative Committee of the High Court of A.P. to conduct interview to the 52 qualified candidates by applying Rule 6 (4) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. Accordingly, the interviews were conducted from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 as per schedule and 17 candidates were declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment. One vacancy reserved for ST (women) remained unfilled as none was qualified. The list of 17 provisionally selected candidates was approved by the Administrative Committee and also the Full Court of the High Court of A.P. on 16.12.2011. On 22.12.2011 the High Court of A.P. published the following list of candidates who are declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment to 17 posts of District and Sessions Judge (Entry Level) by direct recruitment: On 30.12.2011 the High Court sent the above said list of provisionally selected candidates to the Government for issuing necessary orders of appointment. At that stage, these four writ petitions came to be filed. Whereas the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34683 of 2011, 34805 of 2011 and 894 of 2012 are the candidates who were qualified in the written examination, PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 is filed by a practicing advocate as a Public Interest Litigation assailing the selection of only one candidate who is shown at Sl.No.5 of the list of provisionally selected candidates. The petitioner in W.P.No.34683 of 2011 by name Tirumala Devi Eada, seeks a declaration that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and to quash the same. She also prayed for setting aside the selection of the respondents 3 to 19 therein i.e., all the provisionally selected candidates and to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to select and appoint her to the post of District & Sessions Judge (entry level) . In the alternative the petitioner seeks a declaration that the amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is only prospective in nature and that the same shall not be made applicable to the selection process that was started pursuant to the notification dated 19.8.2010 and consequently to declare the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in not taking into account the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce is illegal and contrary to Rule 6 (1) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. W.P.No.34805 of 2011 is filed by one B. Sai Kalyan Chakravarthy seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in applying G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 to the recruitment of the District & Sessions Judges pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 is arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the selection list published vide Notification dated 22.12.2011. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to finalize the selections as per the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 2.8.2008 without reference to the amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The petitioner in W.P.No.894 of 2012 by name Aruna Sarika seeks a declaration that the application of the amended rule vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 to the selection process that was initiated on 19.8.2010 is illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently the petitioner seeks a direction to nullify the selection process from the stage of the interviews and then to make fresh selection as per the unamended Rules under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 2.8.2008. In PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 the selection of only one candidate i.e., the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is assailed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012 are identical and almost all the provisionally selected candidates are arrayed as respondents. It is primarily contended in the said three writ petitions that Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 by virtue of which the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in viva voce is deleted cannot be made applicable to the selections in question since the selection process has already commenced pursuant to the advertisement dated 18/19.08.2010. Consequently the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 8, 11, 14, 15 & 16 of the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, who secured less than the required minimum marks, is sought to be declared illegal. Similarly the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16 & 17 has also been challenged on various other grounds. Similarly the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16 & 17 has also been challenged on various other grounds. In PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 the selection of the respondent No.4 therein (the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011) alone is challenged alleging that he had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria since he did not have the seven years standing at the Bar as on the date of the notification inviting applications for appointment. Since a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents as to the very maintainability of PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012, we propose to deal with the contentions advanced in the said writ petition a little later after adverting to the common issues involved in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012. For the sake of convenience, the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge, shall hereinafter be referred to as per their respective serial numbers in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011. It may also be mentioned that the selection of four candidates namely Chinthalapudi Purushotham Kumar, Sujana Kalasikam, B.R. Madhusudana Rao and Gokavarapu Srinivas who are shown at Sl.Nos.3, 6, 7 & 13 respectively in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is not challenged in any one of the writ petitions. The said fact has not been disputed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The grounds of challenge in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012: In W.P.No.34683 of 2011, it is contended that the amendment to Rules 6 (4) & (10) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 which has been effected by the Government but not the Governor solely in terms of the directions by the High Court of A.P. is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the impugned amendment ought not to have been applied to viva-voce held from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 firstly for the reason that the rules cannot be changed after the commencement of the selection process and secondly for the reason that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was not published in the Official Gazette by the date of viva-voce held from 7.12.2011 onwards. It is further contended that the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who has not satisfied the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar is illegal. The selection of the said candidate is assailed also on the ground that he has not completed the minimum age limit of 35 years. The selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9 & 16 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is also assailed on the very same ground that they have not completed the minimum age limit of 35 years. Similarly the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who is allegedly in full-time employment with a Private Limited Company and the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9, 10 & 12 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors as on the date of submission of their applications is questioned contending that they are ineligible for appointment since they are already in service of the State Government. The allegation against the candidate at Sl.No.17 is that she went abroad in 2001 and returned back to India only in December, 2004. Hence the said period ought not to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar. It is also contended that in the absence of amendment to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 which is the substantial provision, the impugned amendment to Rules 6 (4) & 6 (10) is unenforceable. In W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012 it is contended that the entire selection list is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the impugned amendment was not in existence by the date of the advertisement, dated 18/19.8.2010. It is also contended that the impugned amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, is irrational and unconstitutional since it has virtually rendered the process of viva-voce an empty formality. Case of the respondents: Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the High Court of A.P. Separate counter-affidavits have also been filed by all the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge. Case of the respondents: Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the High Court of A.P. Separate counter-affidavits have also been filed by all the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge. The Registrar (Recruitment) filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the High Court of A.P. stating that the Registry of the High Court placed an office note before the Chief Justice about the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (1) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (1992) 1 SCC 119 ], ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (2) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (1993) 4 SCC 288 ], ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ], RAMESH KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [ (2010) 3 SCC 104 ] and also the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission with regard to deletion of the minimum marks in the viva-voce in relation to direct recruitment to the posts of District Judges. As directed by the Chief Justice, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court in the meeting held on 1.8.2011 and on consideration of the decisions of the Supreme Court it was resolved by the Committee to amend Rule 6 (4) and 6 (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. The minutes of the Administrative Committee was circulated to all the Judges and on receipt of their views a note was placed before the Chief Justice on 19.8.2011 and the same was approved. Accordingly, by letter dated 20.08.2011 the Government was requested to amend Rule 6 (4) and 6 (10) . The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 amending Rule 6 (4) & (10) and the said amendment was uploaded to the official website of the Government of A.P. immediately for the information of all the candidates. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee in the meeting held on 17.11.2011 in which it was resolved to send call letters to 52 eligible candidates and to apply the amended Rule 6 (4) so as to implement the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission which had been accepted by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ]. As resolved by the Administrative Committee, information was sent to the 52 qualified candidates requiring them to appear for viva-voce from 7.12.2011 onwards and the final merit list was prepared after the interviews were conducted and it was published on 22.12.2011. While stating that the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission for deletion of minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce was accepted by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ] and thus it became the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is contended that the respondents 1 & 2 are bound to implement the same. Hence the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) was brought in under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 and it was rightly made applicable to the selection process in question. So far as publication in Official Gazette is concerned, it is pleaded that due to administrative delay G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was published in the Official Gazette only on 3.1.2012. However, it is contended that the petitioners as well as all the candidates applied in response to the advertisement dated 18/19.8.2010 are deemed in law to have knowledge of the amendment to Rule 6 since the same was uploaded to the official website of the State Government much prior to the viva-voce. It is further contended that uploading to the official website to which anybody can have access, has to be construed as a reasonable mode of publication of the amendment and therefore non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in A.P. State Gazette did not vitiate the selection process. It is explained that the impugned amendment to Rule 6 (4) is only for the purpose of giving better chance to the candidates who have secured higher marks in the written examination and to qualify them for selection and such amendment which has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners but on the other hand has merely widened the field of consideration for selection cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. With regard to the contention that the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of the provisionally selected candidates did not possess the required standing of 7 years at the Bar is concerned, it is explained that the period of 9 months during which he pursued his further studies i.e., Master of Laws in U.S.A. need not be deducted since no provision of the Advocates Act prohibits any advocate from pursuing further studies in Law. Thus it is contended that as on the date of his application the candidate at Sl.No.5 has got 7 years 2 months standing at the Bar and as such he is eligible for consideration. With regard to the selected candidates at Sl. Nos. 9 & 12 it is contended that though they are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors, they are eligible for consideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SUSHMA SURI v. GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [ (1999) 1 SCC 330 ]. With regard to the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 of the selection list it is contended that there was no material to show that she was employed in Bayer Pro Agro Company Limited in Hyderabad and that she was not having 7 years standing at the Bar as on the date of her application. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petitions challenging the selection since they have not suffered any prejudice on account of the application of amended rule 6 (4) to the selection process. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State is on the same lines. The other respondents/selected candidates in their separate counter-affidavits sought to justify the impugned action of the official respondents in applying the amended rule 6 (4) to the selection process as well as their selection for recruitment to the posts notified. Points for consideration: In the light of the above noticed pleadings, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court: (1) Whether the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is valid and enforceable? (2) Whether Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process already commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? (2) Whether Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process already commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? (3) Whether the selection of the candidates who have not satisfied the minimum age requirement of 35 years is valid? (4) Whether the persons who are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors by the date of submission of their applications are eligible for recruitment to the post of District Judges and whether the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9, 10 & 12 of the list of provisionally selected candidates is valid? (5) Whether the decision of the High Court that the candidates at Sl.No.5 and Sl.No.17 in the list of provisionally selected candidates have satisfied the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar in spite of the fact that they went abroad for higher studies after their enrolment on the rolls of State Bar Council, is correct? (6) Whether the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 in the list of provisionally selected candidates is liable to be declared illegal on the ground that she is in full-time employment with M/s. Pro Agro Seed Company Private Limited? Point No.1: Whether the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is valid and enforceable? It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction since the amendment was brought out merely on the directions of the High Court. The above contention is sought to be substantiated by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon para-2 of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The said paragraph shows that the Registrar (Recruitment), High Court addressed a letter dated 20.08.2011 informing the Government that the High Court had decided to amend the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 omitting minimum marks in viva-voce for direct recruitment to the categories of District Judges and Civil Judges and interviews to the posts of District & Sessions Judges and written test to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) were deferred by the respective committees till the amendments were made to Rule 6 (4) & (10) and accordingly requesting the Government to consider the amendments to the said Rules and pass necessary orders in the matter. Referring to the aforesaid paragraph in G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the very fact that the High Court had written to the State Government and not to the Governor would clearly show that the Governor was not even consulted and the impugned amendment was made only by the Government on the directions of the High Court without application of mind to the purpose of such amendment. It is contended that the High Court which is only a recommendatory body for making appointment under Article 233 of the Constitution of India has no power or authority to direct any amendment to the Rules under Article 309. It is also contended that the Governor alone is competent to make the rules under the proviso to Article 309 or to make any amendment to the Rules and as the tenor of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 shows that the Governor was not even consulted, the impugned G.O. was apparently made by the Government at the instance of the High Court and therefore on that ground alone the impugned amendment being unconstitutional is liable to be quashed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the allegation that the impugned amendment was made without application of mind has been categorically denied. The further allegation that the Governor was not consulted has also been denied and it is explained in the additional counter-affidavit that on receipt of the proposal from the High Court as to the proposed amendments, the Government after examination of the said proposal had circulated the file to the Governor through Secretary (Services) G.A.D./Chief Secretary/Minister (Law & Courts)/Chief Minister on 12.11.2011 and the orders had been passed by the Governor on the proposal on 14.11.2011. Thereafter, the G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 has been issued and a copy of the same has been sent to the Commissioner of Printing, Stationery and Stores Purchase (Printing Wing, Hyderabad) Department for publication in Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 19.11.2011. Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Governor of a State to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. In exercise of the said power, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 are made by the Governor. Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Governor of a State to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. In exercise of the said power, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 are made by the Governor. Similarly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was also issued by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf. It may be true that the amendment was proposed by the High Court and accordingly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 came to be issued. However there is no basis for the allegation that the amendment was effected merely at the instance of the High Court without even application of mind to the purpose of such amendment. As held in B.S. YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA AIR 1981 SC 561 ) though consultation with the High Court before framing and issuing rules for the judicial services under Article 309 is not a Constitutional requirement, such consultation is a meaningful prelude to the proposed action. It is also relevant to note that such consultation is not prohibited either expressly or by necessary implication under any law. That apart, the impugned amendment is only for the purpose of making the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules in conformity with the law declared by the Supreme Court. Since the said Rules relate to the appointment to the post of District Judges to be made in consultation with the High Court under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, the suggestion of the High Court for amendment was immediately accepted and the amendment was rightly made following due process of law. Apparently it was for a valid reason. The allegation that the impugned amendment was brought out by the Government at the instance of the High Court and that the Governor was not even consulted is also unfounded. Apparently it was for a valid reason. The allegation that the impugned amendment was brought out by the Government at the instance of the High Court and that the Governor was not even consulted is also unfounded. In the light of the particulars furnished in the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State which make it clear that the proposal was very much circulated to the Governor and the G.O. was issued only after receiving the orders of the Governor on the proposal, we are convinced that the impugned amendment has been properly effected in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India having regard to the context in which the amendment is needed. The further contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is unenforceable in the absence of amendment to Rule 6 (1) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 6 (1) being the substantial provision providing for minimum marks in viva-voce, even after the impugned amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) the High Court is bound to follow the requirement of the minimum marks for viva voce notified in the advertisement, dated 18/19.8.2010 in terms of Rule 6 (1) . It is contended that in the absence of corresponding amendment to Rule 6 (1), the requirement of minimum marks for viva voce still subsists and therefore it is mandatory to follow the requirement of minimum marks for viva voce notwithstanding the amendment to Rule 6 (4) . For proper appreciation of the above contention, we may refer to Rule 6 to the extent it is necessary. It may also be added that sub-rule (4) deals with recruitment to category of District Judges whereas sub-rule (10) deals with the category of Civil Judges. Since we are concerned in the present case only with the recruitment to the posts of District Judges, it would be suffice to notice sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6. 6. It may also be added that sub-rule (4) deals with recruitment to category of District Judges whereas sub-rule (10) deals with the category of Civil Judges. Since we are concerned in the present case only with the recruitment to the posts of District Judges, it would be suffice to notice sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6. 6. Methodology for conducting examination: (1) The High Court from time to time shall notify the number of vacancies for the category of District Judges to be appointed by direct recruitment indicating inter alia, the eligibility criteria, the syllabus, the number of marks allotted for written examination, the qualifying mark to be secured by a candidate, the number of marks allotted for the viva voce and the minimum to be secured therein by the candidate. Provided that owing to the contingency it shall be open to the High Court to conduct a screening test which shall be objective type before conducting the written examination followed up by viva voce after duly notifying the same. (2) While the written examination is meant to test the academic knowledge of the candidate, the viva voce is to test his communication skills; his tact; ability to defuse the situations to control the examination of witnesses and also lengthy irrelevant arguments and the like; and his general knowledge. (3) The syllabus for written examination shall be from out of the procedural as well as substantive laws, Local laws and Constitution of India. (4) The written examination shall invariably carry 80 marks limiting the viva voce to the remaining 20 marks. Provided that the candidate shall secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% for O.C. category, 35% for B.C. category and 30% for S.C. and S.T. category in the written examination and a minimum marks of 10 for O.C. category, 8 for B.C. category and 6 for S.C. and S.T. category in the viva voce. (5) to (10) …. …. … … … (emphasis supplied) On a careful reading of the above Rule, it appears to us that what is mandatory under Rule 6 (1) is to notify the number of vacancies. (5) to (10) …. …. … … … (emphasis supplied) On a careful reading of the above Rule, it appears to us that what is mandatory under Rule 6 (1) is to notify the number of vacancies. Though it is also necessary to indicate the other particulars specified therein, Rule 6 (1) cannot be held to be the substantial provision and Rule 6 (4) which prescribes the marks to be carried by the written examination and viva voce as well as the minimum qualifying marks, in our considered opinion, is not controlled by Rule 6 (1) . Therefore the contention that the amendment to Rule 6 (4) cannot be enforced in the absence of corresponding amendment to Rule 6 (1) is untenable. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner namely SHIVARAM A. SHIROOR v. RADHABAI SHANTRAM KOWSHIK (1984) 1 SCC 588 ), B. PREMANAND v. MOHAN KOIKAL (2011) 4 SCC 266 ), ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY (2011) 8 SCC 108 ) and GRID CORPN. OF ORISSA LTD. vs. EASTERN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS (2011) 11 SCC 334 ) wherein the principles of interpretation of statutes have been explained, have no bearing on the issue involved in the case on hand and the reliance upon the said decisions is out of context. Publication in Official Gazette whether mandatory? Yet another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the absence of publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette, the same is unenforceable and therefore the High Court ought not to have applied the same to the viva voce held from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011. Relying upon UNION OF INDIA v. GANESH DAS BHOJRAJ (2000) 9 SCC 461 ) the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned notification will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognized official channel namely the Official Gazette. Since G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was published in the Official Gazette only on 03.01.2012, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the date of viva-voce that was held from 7.12.2011 onwards, the impugned amendment was unenforceable. It is not disputed before this Court by the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 could not be published in the A.P. State Gazette by the date of viva voce due to administrative delay. It is not disputed before this Court by the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 could not be published in the A.P. State Gazette by the date of viva voce due to administrative delay. However, it is contended that it was uploaded to the official website of State Government on 16.11.2011 itself and therefore absence of publication in the A.P. State Gazette is immaterial. At the outset, we may refer to Section 8 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: “8. Publication of rule, regulation, etc., in Electronic Gazette:- Where any law provides that any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter shall be published in the Official Gazette, then, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette. Provided that where any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette, the date of publication shall be deemed to be the date of the Gazette which was first published in any form.” Section 2 (s) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines “electronic gazette” as “official gazette” published in the electronic form. On a reading of Section 8 together with Section 2 (s), it is clear that even where the law provides for publication in the official gazette, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the rules, regulations, etc., are published in the electric gazette i.e., in the electronic form. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners to show that any specific mode of publication, much less publication in the official gazette is prescribed under any law to enforce the A.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2007 made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any amendment to the said rules. In T. NARASIMHULU v. STATE OF A.P. (2010) 6 SCC 545 ) it was held that under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution though required to be published, if no specific mode was prescribed, publication in usual or recognized manner was permissible and the amendment did not become ineffective on account of non-publication in the official gazette. In T. NARASIMHULU v. STATE OF A.P. (2010) 6 SCC 545 ) it was held that under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution though required to be published, if no specific mode was prescribed, publication in usual or recognized manner was permissible and the amendment did not become ineffective on account of non-publication in the official gazette. In B.K.SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( AIR 1987 SC 1059 ), SONIC INDUSTRIES, RAJKOT v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF RAJKOT ( AIR 1986 SC 1518 ) and HARLA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN ( AIR 1951 SC 467 ), it is explained that the object of the publication is to enable the public to acquire knowledge. It is also held in RAI VIMAL KRISHNA v. STATE OF BIHAR (2003) 6 SCC 401 ) that where equally efficacious, if not better modes of publication are available it would be ridiculous to insist on an obsolete form of publication as if it were a ritual. In the light of the legal position noticed above, it is clear that the object of publication is only to draw the attention of the persons sought to be effected by it. Hence, there is no substance in the contention on behalf of the petitioners that publication in the Official Gazette is mandatory. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the absence of any provision prescribing specific mode of publication, what is required is only the publication in a reasonable manner. Admittedly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was uploaded to the official website of the State Government on 16.11.2011 itself and about three weeks thereafter the viva voce was held. As could be seen from the pleadings in the writ petition, all the petitioners had knowledge about the impugned amendment by the date of viva voce. Once it is established that they are aware of the amendment and its purport, as held in RAI VIMAL KRISHNA’S case (11 supra) no special sanctity need be given to the mode of publication. Therefore, non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette by the date of viva voce is of no consequence and on that ground the impugned amendment cannot be held to have become ineffective or inoperative. Therefore, non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette by the date of viva voce is of no consequence and on that ground the impugned amendment cannot be held to have become ineffective or inoperative. Thus in our considered opinion all the three contentions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners with regard to the validity and enforceability of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 are untenable. Point No.2: Whether Rule 6 (4) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? Leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.34683 of 2011 vehemently contended that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) to the selection process in question is impermissible under law in the light of the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 ), HEMANI MALHOTRA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2008) 7 SCC 11) and RAMESH KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2010) 3 SCC 104 ) . On the other hand, Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of A.P. submitted that the impugned amendment was necessary so as to implement the law declared by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA (2002) 4 SCC 247 ) wherein the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission for deletion of minimum marks for viva voce had been accepted. Referring to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel submitted that in fact it is not a case of change of rules as sought to be contended by the writ petitioners, but the High Court has only implemented the law declared by the Supreme Court. It is further contended that the facts in the case on hand are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances under which K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) were decided by the Supreme Court and therefore the ratio laid down therein has no relevance to the case on hand. It is further contended that the facts in the case on hand are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances under which K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) were decided by the Supreme Court and therefore the ratio laid down therein has no relevance to the case on hand. Sri L. Ravichander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the provisionally selected candidates by name Sabbi Premavathi, who is shown at Sl.No.2 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that no prejudice was caused to any of the writ petitioners since the deletion of prescription of minimum marks for viva voce has merely enlarged the scope of consideration among the candidates qualified in the written examination. Relying upon A.M. ALLISON v. B.L. SEN ( AIR 1957 SC 227 ), the learned Senior Counsel contended that even assuming that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) in the midst of the selection process is illegal, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the Court is satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. While submitting that non-application of the amended rule to the selection process in question would result in another illegality of acting contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel urged that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. In support of the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon RAJ KUMAR SONI v. STATE OF U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635 ) and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA v. GREENWORLD CORPORATION, PARWANOO (2009) 7 SCC 69 ) wherein it is held that even if there was any technical violation of the rules of natural justice, the interference is not warranted as such interference would result in resurrection of an illegal order. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2003) 6 SCC 545 ) in support of his submission that this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order where quashing of such illegal order would revive another illegal one. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2003) 6 SCC 545 ) in support of his submission that this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order where quashing of such illegal order would revive another illegal one. Relying upon STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. DISTRICT JUDGE, UNNAO ( AIR 1984 SC 1401 ) and ROSHAN DEEN v. PREETI LAL (2002) 1 SCC 100 ) the learned Senior Counsel further contended that the jurisdiction to be exercised under Article 226 is to advance justice but not to thwart it. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon CHINGLEPUT BOTTLERS v. MAJESTIC BOTTLING COMPANY ( AIR 1984 SC 1030 ) and STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR CHATTERJEE (2010) 11 SCC 694 ) in support of his contention that no Mandamus can be issued compelling the respondents to act contrary to law. Sri S. Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for another provisionally selected candidate by name Majji Babitha, who is shown at Sl.No.16 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra) and HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra) the rights accrued to the selected candidates were taken away by virtue of the change in the eligibility criteria resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioners therein, whereas in the instant case the rule has been amended even prior to the viva voce and the same has been applied equally to all the candidates qualified in the written examination. According to the learned counsel, since the selection process was still going on and no right as such was created in favour of the writ petitioners or any other candidate for appointment, the application of the amended rule was not to the prejudice to anybody and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted. In support of his submission that a decision is a precedent on its own facts, the learned counsel has relied upon STATE OF ORISSA v. MD. ILLIYAS (2006) 1 SCC 275 ) and UNION OF INDIA v. DHANWANTI DEVI (1996) 6 SCC 44 ) . In support of his submission that a decision is a precedent on its own facts, the learned counsel has relied upon STATE OF ORISSA v. MD. ILLIYAS (2006) 1 SCC 275 ) and UNION OF INDIA v. DHANWANTI DEVI (1996) 6 SCC 44 ) . Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidate by name Alapati Giridhar who is shown at Sl.No.11 in the list of the provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that deletion of minimum marks for viva-voce by amending rule 6 (4) cannot be treated as a change of rule in the midst of the selection process. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in fact the advertisement dated 18/19.08.2010 which was issued contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court was irregular and the said irregularity has been cured by application of the amended rule 6 (4) to the selections in question. Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidate by name N. Narsinga Rao, who is shown at Sl.No.1 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, relied upon M/S. SHARMA TRANSPORT v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. ( AIR 2002 SC 322 ) to substantiate his contention that the impugned action cannot be held to be either arbitrary or discriminatory since all the persons who are qualified in the written examination are similarly situated and that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) has similarly effected all of them. It is also contended that all the candidates qualified in the written examination including the writ petitioners appeared for viva voce with full knowledge that there was no need to obtain any minimum marks in viva voce and that the selection would be made on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and viva voce and therefore they cannot now challenge the selections made in terms of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The learned counsel further submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) has no bearing at all for determination of the issue involved in the case on hand. The learned counsel further submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) has no bearing at all for determination of the issue involved in the case on hand. We have also heard Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State, Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, Sri B. Purushotham Reddy and Sri M. Sreerama Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidates by name G. Gopi, Moulana Junaid Ahmed and Dhuli Thirumala Rao respectively, who are shown at Sl.Nos.14, 8 & 15 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011 and whose selection is challenged on the ground that they failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in viva voce. Judgment :- G. Rohini, J. The provisional selection of 17 candidates for recruitment to the posts of District & Sessions Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment in the A.P. Judicial Service is under challenge in all these writ petitions. The facts in brief are as under: By notification dated 10.08.2010 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh notified 18 vacancies for the year 2010 in the category of District & Sessions Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment in the A.P. Judicial Service. Accordingly, the Government of A.P. issued an advertisement in the newspapers, dated 18.08.2010 and 19.08.2010 inviting applications for appointment to the said 18 posts. The last date for receipt of applications was 3.9.2010. The qualifications and age mentioned in the advertisement are as under: “Qualifications and Age: The applicant for the above said post should be (a) an Advocate of not less than seven years standing at the Bar (b) must not have completed 45 years of age on the first day of August, 2010 (relaxation by three years in the upper age limit in respect of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) and (c) of sound health and active habits and free from any body defect or infirmity which render him/her unfit for such appointment." The mode of examination, syllabus, minimum qualifying marks to be secured and other particulars are also specified in the notification. Some of the particulars, which are necessary for the purpose of the present case are: “Mode of Examination etc. Some of the particulars, which are necessary for the purpose of the present case are: “Mode of Examination etc. Selection to the above posts shall be by written examination comprising (a) Objective questions with multiple choice and (b) Subjective/Narrative, which is for 80 marks, followed by an interview. … … … … … … … Viva-Voce (Interview) : The Viva-voce is for 20 marks. … … … … … … … Minimum qualifying marks to be secured: The candidate shall secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% for OC category, 35% for BC category, and 30% for SC and ST categories in the written examination and minimum marks of 10 for OC category, 8 for BC category and 6 for SC and ST categories in the viva voce.” Altogether 2734 applications were received by the State Government and the same were forwarded to the High Court. After scrutiny of the applications, the High Court sent hall-tickets to all the eligible candidates informing them that the written examination would be held on 23.01.2011. However it was postponed and the written examination was held on 6.3.2011 for which 1743 candidates had appeared. On evaluation of the answer sheets, 52 candidates were declared to have been qualified by notification dated 8.8.2011 and they were required to appear for viva-voce from 7.12.2011 onwards. In the meanwhile by G.O.Ms.No.132, Law (LA&J SC.F) Department, dated 16.11.2011, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 have been amended in terms of the resolution dated 1.8.2011 passed by the Administrative Committee of High Court of Andhra Pradesh resolving to delete the requirement of minimum marks in viva-voce. Thus by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, the expression ‘and a minimum marks of 10 for OC category, 8 for BC category and 6 for SC & ST category in the viva-voce’ in the provisos to sub-rules (4) & (10) of Rule 6 of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 has been omitted. The said G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was uploaded to the Official Website of the Government of A.P. on 16.11.2011 itself. On 17.11.2011 it was resolved by the Administrative Committee of the High Court of A.P. to conduct interview to the 52 qualified candidates by applying Rule 6 (4) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. Accordingly, the interviews were conducted from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 as per schedule and 17 candidates were declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment. On 17.11.2011 it was resolved by the Administrative Committee of the High Court of A.P. to conduct interview to the 52 qualified candidates by applying Rule 6 (4) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. Accordingly, the interviews were conducted from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 as per schedule and 17 candidates were declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment. One vacancy reserved for ST (women) remained unfilled as none was qualified. The list of 17 provisionally selected candidates was approved by the Administrative Committee and also the Full Court of the High Court of A.P. on 16.12.2011. On 22.12.2011 the High Court of A.P. published the following list of candidates who are declared to have been provisionally selected for recruitment to 17 posts of District and Sessions Judge (Entry Level) by direct recruitment: On 30.12.2011 the High Court sent the above said list of provisionally selected candidates to the Government for issuing necessary orders of appointment. At that stage, these four writ petitions came to be filed. Whereas the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34683 of 2011, 34805 of 2011 and 894 of 2012 are the candidates who were qualified in the written examination, PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 is filed by a practicing advocate as a Public Interest Litigation assailing the selection of only one candidate who is shown at Sl.No.5 of the list of provisionally selected candidates. The petitioner in W.P.No.34683 of 2011 by name Tirumala Devi Eada, seeks a declaration that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and to quash the same. She also prayed for setting aside the selection of the respondents 3 to 19 therein i.e., all the provisionally selected candidates and to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to select and appoint her to the post of District & Sessions Judge (entry level) . In the alternative the petitioner seeks a declaration that the amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is only prospective in nature and that the same shall not be made applicable to the selection process that was started pursuant to the notification dated 19.8.2010 and consequently to declare the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in not taking into account the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce is illegal and contrary to Rule 6 (1) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. W.P.No.34805 of 2011 is filed by one B. Sai Kalyan Chakravarthy seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in applying G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 to the recruitment of the District & Sessions Judges pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 is arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the selection list published vide Notification dated 22.12.2011. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to finalize the selections as per the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 2.8.2008 without reference to the amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The petitioner in W.P.No.894 of 2012 by name Aruna Sarika seeks a declaration that the application of the amended rule vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 to the selection process that was initiated on 19.8.2010 is illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently the petitioner seeks a direction to nullify the selection process from the stage of the interviews and then to make fresh selection as per the unamended Rules under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 2.8.2008. In PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 the selection of only one candidate i.e., the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is assailed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012 are identical and almost all the provisionally selected candidates are arrayed as respondents. It is primarily contended in the said three writ petitions that Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 by virtue of which the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in viva voce is deleted cannot be made applicable to the selections in question since the selection process has already commenced pursuant to the advertisement dated 18/19.08.2010. Consequently the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 8, 11, 14, 15 & 16 of the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, who secured less than the required minimum marks, is sought to be declared illegal. Similarly the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16 & 17 has also been challenged on various other grounds. Similarly the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16 & 17 has also been challenged on various other grounds. In PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012 the selection of the respondent No.4 therein (the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011) alone is challenged alleging that he had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria since he did not have the seven years standing at the Bar as on the date of the notification inviting applications for appointment. Since a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents as to the very maintainability of PIL W.P.No.10 of 2012, we propose to deal with the contentions advanced in the said writ petition a little later after adverting to the common issues involved in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012. For the sake of convenience, the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge, shall hereinafter be referred to as per their respective serial numbers in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011. It may also be mentioned that the selection of four candidates namely Chinthalapudi Purushotham Kumar, Sujana Kalasikam, B.R. Madhusudana Rao and Gokavarapu Srinivas who are shown at Sl.Nos.3, 6, 7 & 13 respectively in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is not challenged in any one of the writ petitions. The said fact has not been disputed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The grounds of challenge in W.P.No.34683 of 2011, W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012: In W.P.No.34683 of 2011, it is contended that the amendment to Rules 6 (4) & (10) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 which has been effected by the Government but not the Governor solely in terms of the directions by the High Court of A.P. is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the impugned amendment ought not to have been applied to viva-voce held from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 firstly for the reason that the rules cannot be changed after the commencement of the selection process and secondly for the reason that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was not published in the Official Gazette by the date of viva-voce held from 7.12.2011 onwards. It is further contended that the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who has not satisfied the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar is illegal. The selection of the said candidate is assailed also on the ground that he has not completed the minimum age limit of 35 years. The selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9 & 16 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 is also assailed on the very same ground that they have not completed the minimum age limit of 35 years. Similarly the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who is allegedly in full-time employment with a Private Limited Company and the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9, 10 & 12 in the list of provisionally selected candidates dated 22.12.2011 who are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors as on the date of submission of their applications is questioned contending that they are ineligible for appointment since they are already in service of the State Government. The allegation against the candidate at Sl.No.17 is that she went abroad in 2001 and returned back to India only in December, 2004. Hence the said period ought not to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar. It is also contended that in the absence of amendment to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 which is the substantial provision, the impugned amendment to Rules 6 (4) & 6 (10) is unenforceable. In W.P.No.34805 of 2011 and W.P.No.894 of 2012 it is contended that the entire selection list is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the impugned amendment was not in existence by the date of the advertisement, dated 18/19.8.2010. It is also contended that the impugned amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, is irrational and unconstitutional since it has virtually rendered the process of viva-voce an empty formality. Case of the respondents: Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the High Court of A.P. Separate counter-affidavits have also been filed by all the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge. Case of the respondents: Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the High Court of A.P. Separate counter-affidavits have also been filed by all the unofficial respondents i.e., the candidates whose selection is under challenge. The Registrar (Recruitment) filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the High Court of A.P. stating that the Registry of the High Court placed an office note before the Chief Justice about the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (1) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (1992) 1 SCC 119 ], ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (2) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (1993) 4 SCC 288 ], ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ], RAMESH KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [ (2010) 3 SCC 104 ] and also the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission with regard to deletion of the minimum marks in the viva-voce in relation to direct recruitment to the posts of District Judges. As directed by the Chief Justice, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court in the meeting held on 1.8.2011 and on consideration of the decisions of the Supreme Court it was resolved by the Committee to amend Rule 6 (4) and 6 (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. The minutes of the Administrative Committee was circulated to all the Judges and on receipt of their views a note was placed before the Chief Justice on 19.8.2011 and the same was approved. Accordingly, by letter dated 20.08.2011 the Government was requested to amend Rule 6 (4) and 6 (10) . The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 amending Rule 6 (4) & (10) and the said amendment was uploaded to the official website of the Government of A.P. immediately for the information of all the candidates. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee in the meeting held on 17.11.2011 in which it was resolved to send call letters to 52 eligible candidates and to apply the amended Rule 6 (4) so as to implement the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission which had been accepted by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ]. As resolved by the Administrative Committee, information was sent to the 52 qualified candidates requiring them to appear for viva-voce from 7.12.2011 onwards and the final merit list was prepared after the interviews were conducted and it was published on 22.12.2011. While stating that the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission for deletion of minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce was accepted by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ] and thus it became the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is contended that the respondents 1 & 2 are bound to implement the same. Hence the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) was brought in under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 and it was rightly made applicable to the selection process in question. So far as publication in Official Gazette is concerned, it is pleaded that due to administrative delay G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was published in the Official Gazette only on 3.1.2012. However, it is contended that the petitioners as well as all the candidates applied in response to the advertisement dated 18/19.8.2010 are deemed in law to have knowledge of the amendment to Rule 6 since the same was uploaded to the official website of the State Government much prior to the viva-voce. It is further contended that uploading to the official website to which anybody can have access, has to be construed as a reasonable mode of publication of the amendment and therefore non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in A.P. State Gazette did not vitiate the selection process. It is explained that the impugned amendment to Rule 6 (4) is only for the purpose of giving better chance to the candidates who have secured higher marks in the written examination and to qualify them for selection and such amendment which has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners but on the other hand has merely widened the field of consideration for selection cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. With regard to the contention that the candidate at Sl.No.5 in the list of the provisionally selected candidates did not possess the required standing of 7 years at the Bar is concerned, it is explained that the period of 9 months during which he pursued his further studies i.e., Master of Laws in U.S.A. need not be deducted since no provision of the Advocates Act prohibits any advocate from pursuing further studies in Law. Thus it is contended that as on the date of his application the candidate at Sl.No.5 has got 7 years 2 months standing at the Bar and as such he is eligible for consideration. With regard to the selected candidates at Sl. Nos. 9 & 12 it is contended that though they are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors, they are eligible for consideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SUSHMA SURI v. GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [ (1999) 1 SCC 330 ]. With regard to the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 of the selection list it is contended that there was no material to show that she was employed in Bayer Pro Agro Company Limited in Hyderabad and that she was not having 7 years standing at the Bar as on the date of her application. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petitions challenging the selection since they have not suffered any prejudice on account of the application of amended rule 6 (4) to the selection process. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State is on the same lines. The other respondents/selected candidates in their separate counter-affidavits sought to justify the impugned action of the official respondents in applying the amended rule 6 (4) to the selection process as well as their selection for recruitment to the posts notified. Points for consideration: In the light of the above noticed pleadings, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court: (1) Whether the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is valid and enforceable? (2) Whether Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process already commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? (2) Whether Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process already commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? (3) Whether the selection of the candidates who have not satisfied the minimum age requirement of 35 years is valid? (4) Whether the persons who are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors by the date of submission of their applications are eligible for recruitment to the post of District Judges and whether the selection of the candidates at Sl.Nos.9, 10 & 12 of the list of provisionally selected candidates is valid? (5) Whether the decision of the High Court that the candidates at Sl.No.5 and Sl.No.17 in the list of provisionally selected candidates have satisfied the requirement of 7 years standing at the Bar in spite of the fact that they went abroad for higher studies after their enrolment on the rolls of State Bar Council, is correct? (6) Whether the selection of the candidate at Sl.No.4 in the list of provisionally selected candidates is liable to be declared illegal on the ground that she is in full-time employment with M/s. Pro Agro Seed Company Private Limited? Point No.1: Whether the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is valid and enforceable? It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the amendment under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction since the amendment was brought out merely on the directions of the High Court. The above contention is sought to be substantiated by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon para-2 of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The said paragraph shows that the Registrar (Recruitment), High Court addressed a letter dated 20.08.2011 informing the Government that the High Court had decided to amend the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 omitting minimum marks in viva-voce for direct recruitment to the categories of District Judges and Civil Judges and interviews to the posts of District & Sessions Judges and written test to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) were deferred by the respective committees till the amendments were made to Rule 6 (4) & (10) and accordingly requesting the Government to consider the amendments to the said Rules and pass necessary orders in the matter. Referring to the aforesaid paragraph in G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the very fact that the High Court had written to the State Government and not to the Governor would clearly show that the Governor was not even consulted and the impugned amendment was made only by the Government on the directions of the High Court without application of mind to the purpose of such amendment. It is contended that the High Court which is only a recommendatory body for making appointment under Article 233 of the Constitution of India has no power or authority to direct any amendment to the Rules under Article 309. It is also contended that the Governor alone is competent to make the rules under the proviso to Article 309 or to make any amendment to the Rules and as the tenor of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 shows that the Governor was not even consulted, the impugned G.O. was apparently made by the Government at the instance of the High Court and therefore on that ground alone the impugned amendment being unconstitutional is liable to be quashed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the allegation that the impugned amendment was made without application of mind has been categorically denied. The further allegation that the Governor was not consulted has also been denied and it is explained in the additional counter-affidavit that on receipt of the proposal from the High Court as to the proposed amendments, the Government after examination of the said proposal had circulated the file to the Governor through Secretary (Services) G.A.D./Chief Secretary/Minister (Law & Courts)/Chief Minister on 12.11.2011 and the orders had been passed by the Governor on the proposal on 14.11.2011. Thereafter, the G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 has been issued and a copy of the same has been sent to the Commissioner of Printing, Stationery and Stores Purchase (Printing Wing, Hyderabad) Department for publication in Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 19.11.2011. Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Governor of a State to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. In exercise of the said power, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 are made by the Governor. Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Governor of a State to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. In exercise of the said power, the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 are made by the Governor. Similarly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was also issued by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf. It may be true that the amendment was proposed by the High Court and accordingly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 came to be issued. However there is no basis for the allegation that the amendment was effected merely at the instance of the High Court without even application of mind to the purpose of such amendment. As held in B.S. YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA AIR 1981 SC 561 ) though consultation with the High Court before framing and issuing rules for the judicial services under Article 309 is not a Constitutional requirement, such consultation is a meaningful prelude to the proposed action. It is also relevant to note that such consultation is not prohibited either expressly or by necessary implication under any law. That apart, the impugned amendment is only for the purpose of making the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules in conformity with the law declared by the Supreme Court. Since the said Rules relate to the appointment to the post of District Judges to be made in consultation with the High Court under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, the suggestion of the High Court for amendment was immediately accepted and the amendment was rightly made following due process of law. Apparently it was for a valid reason. The allegation that the impugned amendment was brought out by the Government at the instance of the High Court and that the Governor was not even consulted is also unfounded. Apparently it was for a valid reason. The allegation that the impugned amendment was brought out by the Government at the instance of the High Court and that the Governor was not even consulted is also unfounded. In the light of the particulars furnished in the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State which make it clear that the proposal was very much circulated to the Governor and the G.O. was issued only after receiving the orders of the Governor on the proposal, we are convinced that the impugned amendment has been properly effected in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India having regard to the context in which the amendment is needed. The further contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) under G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 is unenforceable in the absence of amendment to Rule 6 (1) of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 6 (1) being the substantial provision providing for minimum marks in viva-voce, even after the impugned amendment to Rule 6 (4) & (10) the High Court is bound to follow the requirement of the minimum marks for viva voce notified in the advertisement, dated 18/19.8.2010 in terms of Rule 6 (1) . It is contended that in the absence of corresponding amendment to Rule 6 (1), the requirement of minimum marks for viva voce still subsists and therefore it is mandatory to follow the requirement of minimum marks for viva voce notwithstanding the amendment to Rule 6 (4) . For proper appreciation of the above contention, we may refer to Rule 6 to the extent it is necessary. It may also be added that sub-rule (4) deals with recruitment to category of District Judges whereas sub-rule (10) deals with the category of Civil Judges. Since we are concerned in the present case only with the recruitment to the posts of District Judges, it would be suffice to notice sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6. 6. It may also be added that sub-rule (4) deals with recruitment to category of District Judges whereas sub-rule (10) deals with the category of Civil Judges. Since we are concerned in the present case only with the recruitment to the posts of District Judges, it would be suffice to notice sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6. 6. Methodology for conducting examination: (1) The High Court from time to time shall notify the number of vacancies for the category of District Judges to be appointed by direct recruitment indicating inter alia, the eligibility criteria, the syllabus, the number of marks allotted for written examination, the qualifying mark to be secured by a candidate, the number of marks allotted for the viva voce and the minimum to be secured therein by the candidate. Provided that owing to the contingency it shall be open to the High Court to conduct a screening test which shall be objective type before conducting the written examination followed up by viva voce after duly notifying the same. (2) While the written examination is meant to test the academic knowledge of the candidate, the viva voce is to test his communication skills; his tact; ability to defuse the situations to control the examination of witnesses and also lengthy irrelevant arguments and the like; and his general knowledge. (3) The syllabus for written examination shall be from out of the procedural as well as substantive laws, Local laws and Constitution of India. (4) The written examination shall invariably carry 80 marks limiting the viva voce to the remaining 20 marks. Provided that the candidate shall secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% for O.C. category, 35% for B.C. category and 30% for S.C. and S.T. category in the written examination and a minimum marks of 10 for O.C. category, 8 for B.C. category and 6 for S.C. and S.T. category in the viva voce. (5) to (10) …. …. … … … (emphasis supplied) On a careful reading of the above Rule, it appears to us that what is mandatory under Rule 6 (1) is to notify the number of vacancies. (5) to (10) …. …. … … … (emphasis supplied) On a careful reading of the above Rule, it appears to us that what is mandatory under Rule 6 (1) is to notify the number of vacancies. Though it is also necessary to indicate the other particulars specified therein, Rule 6 (1) cannot be held to be the substantial provision and Rule 6 (4) which prescribes the marks to be carried by the written examination and viva voce as well as the minimum qualifying marks, in our considered opinion, is not controlled by Rule 6 (1) . Therefore the contention that the amendment to Rule 6 (4) cannot be enforced in the absence of corresponding amendment to Rule 6 (1) is untenable. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner namely SHIVARAM A. SHIROOR v. RADHABAI SHANTRAM KOWSHIK (1984) 1 SCC 588 ), B. PREMANAND v. MOHAN KOIKAL (2011) 4 SCC 266 ), ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY (2011) 8 SCC 108 ) and GRID CORPN. OF ORISSA LTD. vs. EASTERN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS (2011) 11 SCC 334 ) wherein the principles of interpretation of statutes have been explained, have no bearing on the issue involved in the case on hand and the reliance upon the said decisions is out of context. Publication in Official Gazette whether mandatory? Yet another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the absence of publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette, the same is unenforceable and therefore the High Court ought not to have applied the same to the viva voce held from 7.12.2011 to 16.12.2011. Relying upon UNION OF INDIA v. GANESH DAS BHOJRAJ (2000) 9 SCC 461 ) the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned notification will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognized official channel namely the Official Gazette. Since G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was published in the Official Gazette only on 03.01.2012, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the date of viva-voce that was held from 7.12.2011 onwards, the impugned amendment was unenforceable. It is not disputed before this Court by the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 could not be published in the A.P. State Gazette by the date of viva voce due to administrative delay. It is not disputed before this Court by the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 could not be published in the A.P. State Gazette by the date of viva voce due to administrative delay. However, it is contended that it was uploaded to the official website of State Government on 16.11.2011 itself and therefore absence of publication in the A.P. State Gazette is immaterial. At the outset, we may refer to Section 8 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: “8. Publication of rule, regulation, etc., in Electronic Gazette:- Where any law provides that any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter shall be published in the Official Gazette, then, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette. Provided that where any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette, the date of publication shall be deemed to be the date of the Gazette which was first published in any form.” Section 2 (s) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines “electronic gazette” as “official gazette” published in the electronic form. On a reading of Section 8 together with Section 2 (s), it is clear that even where the law provides for publication in the official gazette, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the rules, regulations, etc., are published in the electric gazette i.e., in the electronic form. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners to show that any specific mode of publication, much less publication in the official gazette is prescribed under any law to enforce the A.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2007 made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any amendment to the said rules. In T. NARASIMHULU v. STATE OF A.P. (2010) 6 SCC 545 ) it was held that under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution though required to be published, if no specific mode was prescribed, publication in usual or recognized manner was permissible and the amendment did not become ineffective on account of non-publication in the official gazette. In T. NARASIMHULU v. STATE OF A.P. (2010) 6 SCC 545 ) it was held that under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution though required to be published, if no specific mode was prescribed, publication in usual or recognized manner was permissible and the amendment did not become ineffective on account of non-publication in the official gazette. In B.K.SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( AIR 1987 SC 1059 ), SONIC INDUSTRIES, RAJKOT v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF RAJKOT ( AIR 1986 SC 1518 ) and HARLA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN ( AIR 1951 SC 467 ), it is explained that the object of the publication is to enable the public to acquire knowledge. It is also held in RAI VIMAL KRISHNA v. STATE OF BIHAR (2003) 6 SCC 401 ) that where equally efficacious, if not better modes of publication are available it would be ridiculous to insist on an obsolete form of publication as if it were a ritual. In the light of the legal position noticed above, it is clear that the object of publication is only to draw the attention of the persons sought to be effected by it. Hence, there is no substance in the contention on behalf of the petitioners that publication in the Official Gazette is mandatory. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the absence of any provision prescribing specific mode of publication, what is required is only the publication in a reasonable manner. Admittedly G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 was uploaded to the official website of the State Government on 16.11.2011 itself and about three weeks thereafter the viva voce was held. As could be seen from the pleadings in the writ petition, all the petitioners had knowledge about the impugned amendment by the date of viva voce. Once it is established that they are aware of the amendment and its purport, as held in RAI VIMAL KRISHNA’S case (11 supra) no special sanctity need be given to the mode of publication. Therefore, non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette by the date of viva voce is of no consequence and on that ground the impugned amendment cannot be held to have become ineffective or inoperative. Therefore, non-publication of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 in the Official Gazette by the date of viva voce is of no consequence and on that ground the impugned amendment cannot be held to have become ineffective or inoperative. Thus in our considered opinion all the three contentions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners with regard to the validity and enforceability of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 are untenable. Point No.2: Whether Rule 6 (4) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011 can be applied to the selection process commenced pursuant to the notification dated 10.08.2010 (advertised in the newspapers on 18/19.8.2010) ? Leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.34683 of 2011 vehemently contended that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) to the selection process in question is impermissible under law in the light of the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 ), HEMANI MALHOTRA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2008) 7 SCC 11) and RAMESH KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2010) 3 SCC 104 ) . On the other hand, Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of A.P. submitted that the impugned amendment was necessary so as to implement the law declared by the Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION (3) v. UNION OF INDIA (2002) 4 SCC 247 ) wherein the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission for deletion of minimum marks for viva voce had been accepted. Referring to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel submitted that in fact it is not a case of change of rules as sought to be contended by the writ petitioners, but the High Court has only implemented the law declared by the Supreme Court. It is further contended that the facts in the case on hand are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances under which K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) were decided by the Supreme Court and therefore the ratio laid down therein has no relevance to the case on hand. It is further contended that the facts in the case on hand are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances under which K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) were decided by the Supreme Court and therefore the ratio laid down therein has no relevance to the case on hand. Sri L. Ravichander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the provisionally selected candidates by name Sabbi Premavathi, who is shown at Sl.No.2 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that no prejudice was caused to any of the writ petitioners since the deletion of prescription of minimum marks for viva voce has merely enlarged the scope of consideration among the candidates qualified in the written examination. Relying upon A.M. ALLISON v. B.L. SEN ( AIR 1957 SC 227 ), the learned Senior Counsel contended that even assuming that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) in the midst of the selection process is illegal, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the Court is satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. While submitting that non-application of the amended rule to the selection process in question would result in another illegality of acting contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel urged that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. In support of the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon RAJ KUMAR SONI v. STATE OF U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635 ) and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA v. GREENWORLD CORPORATION, PARWANOO (2009) 7 SCC 69 ) wherein it is held that even if there was any technical violation of the rules of natural justice, the interference is not warranted as such interference would result in resurrection of an illegal order. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2003) 6 SCC 545 ) in support of his submission that this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order where quashing of such illegal order would revive another illegal one. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2003) 6 SCC 545 ) in support of his submission that this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order where quashing of such illegal order would revive another illegal one. Relying upon STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. DISTRICT JUDGE, UNNAO ( AIR 1984 SC 1401 ) and ROSHAN DEEN v. PREETI LAL (2002) 1 SCC 100 ) the learned Senior Counsel further contended that the jurisdiction to be exercised under Article 226 is to advance justice but not to thwart it. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon CHINGLEPUT BOTTLERS v. MAJESTIC BOTTLING COMPANY ( AIR 1984 SC 1030 ) and STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUBHAS KUMAR CHATTERJEE (2010) 11 SCC 694 ) in support of his contention that no Mandamus can be issued compelling the respondents to act contrary to law. Sri S. Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for another provisionally selected candidate by name Majji Babitha, who is shown at Sl.No.16 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra) and HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra) the rights accrued to the selected candidates were taken away by virtue of the change in the eligibility criteria resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioners therein, whereas in the instant case the rule has been amended even prior to the viva voce and the same has been applied equally to all the candidates qualified in the written examination. According to the learned counsel, since the selection process was still going on and no right as such was created in favour of the writ petitioners or any other candidate for appointment, the application of the amended rule was not to the prejudice to anybody and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted. In support of his submission that a decision is a precedent on its own facts, the learned counsel has relied upon STATE OF ORISSA v. MD. ILLIYAS (2006) 1 SCC 275 ) and UNION OF INDIA v. DHANWANTI DEVI (1996) 6 SCC 44 ) . In support of his submission that a decision is a precedent on its own facts, the learned counsel has relied upon STATE OF ORISSA v. MD. ILLIYAS (2006) 1 SCC 275 ) and UNION OF INDIA v. DHANWANTI DEVI (1996) 6 SCC 44 ) . Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidate by name Alapati Giridhar who is shown at Sl.No.11 in the list of the provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, submitted that deletion of minimum marks for viva-voce by amending rule 6 (4) cannot be treated as a change of rule in the midst of the selection process. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in fact the advertisement dated 18/19.08.2010 which was issued contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court was irregular and the said irregularity has been cured by application of the amended rule 6 (4) to the selections in question. Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidate by name N. Narsinga Rao, who is shown at Sl.No.1 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011, relied upon M/S. SHARMA TRANSPORT v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. ( AIR 2002 SC 322 ) to substantiate his contention that the impugned action cannot be held to be either arbitrary or discriminatory since all the persons who are qualified in the written examination are similarly situated and that the application of the amended Rule 6 (4) has similarly effected all of them. It is also contended that all the candidates qualified in the written examination including the writ petitioners appeared for viva voce with full knowledge that there was no need to obtain any minimum marks in viva voce and that the selection would be made on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and viva voce and therefore they cannot now challenge the selections made in terms of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16.11.2011. The learned counsel further submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) has no bearing at all for determination of the issue involved in the case on hand. The learned counsel further submitted that the ratio laid down in K. MANJUSREE’S case (12 supra), HEMANI MALHOTRA’S case (13 supra) and RAMESH KUMAR’S case (14 supra) has no bearing at all for determination of the issue involved in the case on hand. We have also heard Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State, Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, Sri B. Purushotham Reddy and Sri M. Sreerama Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the provisionally selected candidates by name G. Gopi, Moulana Junaid Ahmed and Dhuli Thirumala Rao respectively, who are shown at Sl.Nos.14, 8 & 15 in the list of provisionally selected candidates, dated 22.12.2011 and whose selection is challenged on the ground that they failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in viva voce.