JUDGMENT 1. - In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to publish the list of the candidates called for interview category wise and also to call her for interview for appointment to the post of District Judge Cadre. 2. Heard Mr.J.D.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. For the order proposed to be passed in this petition, it is not considered necessary to issue any formal notice to the respondent. 4. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that she is an advocate having enrolment No.R/796/1997. Pursuant to notification dated 19.7.2011 inviting applications from the Advocates for filling up 39 vacant posts in the cadre of District Judge by direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (As amended in 2011) (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the petitioner being eligible submitted her application alongwith requisite documents. Out of 39 vacant posts advertised, horizontal reservation for women candidates was provided against 10 posts. Six posts therefrom are to be filled up by general category women candidates. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination and her roll number was 4703. The written examination was held on 5.5.2012 and 6.5.2012 and the results thereof were declared on 6.8.2012 and she was declared to have passed the examination having secured 122 marks in aggregate. According to the petitioner, the respondent declared the result of 384 candidates, out of which, 100 candidates were called for interview scheduled to be held from 14.5.2013 to 24.5.2013. Though she was found successful in the written examination, she has not been called for the interview. 5. Referring to Rule 40 of the Rules, the petitioner has asserted that in view of 39 vacancies advertised, 117 (39 x 3) candidates ought to have been called for the interview. To be specific, according to her, as six posts had been reserved for the women candidates of the general category, 18 such candidates ought to have been called for the interview, instead of 17, as done. She has elaborated further to aver that against 10 posts for which horizontal reservation has been accorded to the women candidates, in fact, only 23 have been called for the interview. She has elaborated further to aver that against 10 posts for which horizontal reservation has been accorded to the women candidates, in fact, only 23 have been called for the interview. Contending that in terms of Rule 40, it is mandatory to call for interview all the candidates securing minimum qualifying marks in the written examination in the ratio of 1:3, the petitioner has sought for the reliefs as referred to hereinabove. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that not only in terms of Rule 40 of the 2010 Rules, candidates securing the minimum pass marks in the written examination on the basis of 1:3 ratio, ought to have been obligatorily called for the interview in order of merit, the fixation of qualifying marks and application thereof to shortlist the candidates who had passed the written examination without disclosing the same in the advertisement has vitiated the process for lack of transparency and fairness. He insisted that fixation of the qualifying marks on the eve of the interview amounts to changing of the rules of the game after the initiation thereof and is wholly illegal, unfair and arbitrary. 7. The pleaded facts together with the documents on record alongwith the arguments advanced have received the due attention of this Court. 8. Rule 40 of the 2010 Rules, which occupies the centre stage of the debate, is extracted hereinbelow:- "40. Examination.- (1) A competitive examination for direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judge shall be held by the Court every year on or before the dates specified in the Schedule-III (@ Substituted) (2) A Candidate who obtains such qualifying marks in written examination, as may be fixed by the Court, shall be called for interview. Note:- Number of persons called for interview shall not exceed three times the number of vacancies advertised in each category. (3) The Committee consisting of the Chief Justice, the Administrative Judge and three other Judges nominated by the Chief Justice shall interview the candidates. (Substituted)" 9. That the process in question was initiated by the notification dated 19.7.2011 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), is an admitted fact. As the said notification would disclose, total number of vacancies mentioned therein were 39 with the breakups thereof, amongst general and reserved categories, as recited therein. (Substituted)" 9. That the process in question was initiated by the notification dated 19.7.2011 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), is an admitted fact. As the said notification would disclose, total number of vacancies mentioned therein were 39 with the breakups thereof, amongst general and reserved categories, as recited therein. It was clearly mentioned in the said notification that the process would be administered in terms of the 2010 Rules (as amended in 2011) and the candidates were advised to read the same thoroughly prior to applying for the post. 10. The scheme for the competitive examination for recruitment to the District Judges' Cadre, as referred to in Rule 39, is set out in Schedule IX of the Rules. It transpires therefrom that the scheme contemplates written examination in the subjects mentioned therein and an interview to test the general knowledge of the candidate and his/her fitness for appointment to the Cadre. The maximum and minimum marks have been detailed in this schedule vide the Rajasthan Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2012, as hereunder: Subject Maximum Marks Minimum Marks For SC/ST Candidates For other candidates 1.Law Paper-I 100 40 45 Paper-II 100 40 45 2. Language which includes translation, precis, essays etc. Translation may include Hindi to English and English to Hindi. 50 18 18 3. Interview 30 7.5 7.5 These are to be effective from 10.6.2011. 11. Be that as it may, in terms of Rule 40(2), a candidate would be called for the interview only if he/she obtains such qualifying marks in the written examination, as may be fixed by the Court i.e.High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The expression "qualifying marks" is evidently different from "maximum marks and minimum marks", as referred to in Schedule IX, and therefore, connotes cut off level marks to be fixed by the Court, qua candidates who had secured minimum pass marks in the written examination to be called for the interview. The qualifying marks in the written examination, therefore, have to be applied on the eve of the interview and depending on the number of candidates who had passed the written examination for the purpose of shortlisting them in order of merit. The qualifying marks in the written examination, therefore, have to be applied on the eve of the interview and depending on the number of candidates who had passed the written examination for the purpose of shortlisting them in order of merit. The note appearing beneath Rule 40(2) to the effect that number of persons called for interview shall not exceed three times the number of vacancies advertised in each category, is not only subject to the mandate of fixation of qualifying marks in the written examination, but also merely fixes a ceiling on the number of candidates to be so called. The note can, by no means, either supersede or control the prescription of Rule 40(2) of the Rules. The concept of essentiality of fixation of qualifying marks to shortlist the candidate in order of merit for the interview is thus, ingrained in the Rules. Noticeably, the validity of the Rules has not been challenged and are thus, binding on the petitioner. 12. Irrefutably, the provision for fixation of qualifying marks in the written examination to shortlist the candidates for the purpose of interview has to be invoked after the written examination is conducted and the results thereof are declared. Moreover, such a stipulation is an integral part of the Rules of which every participating candidate is expected to be acquainted with, as required by the notification dated 19.7.2011. Fixation of qualifying marks in terms of Rule 40(2) thus, by no means, can be imputed to be an act resulting in altering the rules of the game after the initiation of the selection process by the notification dated 19.7.2011. To reiterate, marks to be so fixed would depend on the number of successful candidates in the examination demonstrating inter alia the quality of their performance and standard to be set for shortlisting them for the interview, bearing in mind the Cadre in which recruitment is to be made and the desired level of excellence in Service in the institutional exigencies. The marks to be so fixed indubitably, has to be above the minimum pass marks in the written examination in view of the underlying objective thereof, and thus, is directed towards identification of comparatively more meritorious candidates judged by their performance in the written examination. The marks to be so fixed indubitably, has to be above the minimum pass marks in the written examination in view of the underlying objective thereof, and thus, is directed towards identification of comparatively more meritorious candidates judged by their performance in the written examination. Such edict of the Rules cannot, in any view of the matter, be criticised to be incompatible with the insistence for high quality of candidates for recruitment to the District Judge Cadre in the Higher Judicial Service of the State. The plea that the qualifying marks ought to have been fixed before conducting the written examination and declared in the notification/advertisement, having regard to the scheme of the Rules, is thus, wholly untenable. As contemplated, the ceiling of three times the number of vacancies, to define the zone of candidates to be called for the interview, is vividly subject to the predication of Rule 40(2) of the Rules. The petitioner's contention that having regard to the number of vacancies i.e.39, 117 candidates ought to have been called, is thus, utterly misplaced. On the same analogy that as six posts were to be filled up by women candidates of general category, 18 such candidates ought to have been called for the interview, also does not bear a moment's scrutiny. Apart from this, the petitioner cannot dispute the authority of the Court to decide the cut off marks as well as the number of candidates to be called for the interview. Mere securing pass marks in the written examination does not entitle her to be called for interview in the face of mandate of Rule 40(2) of the Rules. 13. In Rekha Madnani v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur & Anr, D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1509/2013 decided on 13.5.2013 the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench Jaipur has considered the similar submissions and after elaborate discussion and assigning detailed reasons, repelled the same and declined the request to call the petitioner of that case for interview. On the same reasoning, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 14. Thus, on a cumulative consideration of all above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is rejected.Petition dismissed. *******