JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the notice dated 01.12.2011 issued by the In-Charge Recruitment Cell, Gauhati High Court, declaring the result of the recruitment process initiated for appointment to 3 (three) vacant posts in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service, notifying that none has been selected for appointment, with a further prayer to declare the petitioners as selected for being recommended for appointment to the said posts, after preparing a combined merit list on the basis of the total marks obtained in the Main (Written) Examination and viva-voce test. An advertisement inviting applications to fill up 3 (three) posts in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service by direct recruitment was issued on 18.01.2011 by the Registrar (Judicial)-cum-In-Charge Recruitment Cell of the High Court, under the provisions of Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 (in short the 2003 Rules), as amended, pursuant to which 43 candidates filed their applications seeking selection. A preliminary examination/screening test was held on 12.06.2011 at Agartala, wherein said 43 (forty three) candidates appeared. The result of the preliminary examination/screening test was declared on 24.06.2011. 17 (seventeen) candidates including the petitioners were qualified for the Main (Written) Examination, which was held on 30th and 31st July, 2011 at Agartala. The result of the Main (Written) Examination was declared on 29.09.2011. 10 (ten) candidates, including the petitioners, were found to have cleared the Main (Written) Examination and accordingly they were asked to appear in the viva-voce test to be held on 29.10.2011 at Guwahati. All those 10 (ten) candidates accordingly appeared in the viva-voce test held on 29.10.2011, result of which was declared vide notification dated 01.12.2011 declaring that none of the candidates has been selected for appointment. Hence the present writ petitions. 2. We have heard Mr. Arunabh Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 1355/2012; Mr. Sunil Murarka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 1111/2012 and Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 1524/2012 and 2293/2012. We have also heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned standing counsel of the High Court, apart from Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned State counsel appearing for the State of Tripura. 3. Mr. Sunil Murarka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 1111/2012 and Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 1524/2012 and 2293/2012. We have also heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned standing counsel of the High Court, apart from Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned State counsel appearing for the State of Tripura. 3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, referring to the 2003 Rules, as amended, by Tripura Judicial Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2007, has submitted that Schedule-B to the said Rules having prescribed the detailed procedure for selection of candidates for appointment in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service, requiring preparation of final select list by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written examination and viva-voce test, the select list of candidates had to be prepared on the basis of the marks secured in the written and viva-voce test. In the instant case, according to the learned counsel, though the petitioners, having duly qualified for appearing in the viva-voce test, securing more than 60% marks in the Main (Written) Examination, appeared in the viva-voce test conducted for that purpose, no select list has been prepared, which ought to have been done by combining the marks obtained in the Main (Written) Examination and viva-voce test and thereafter declare the result. Referring to the decision in All India Judges' Association & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors. reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 , the learned counsel has submitted that as the Apex Court has accepted the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission's report, with the modifications indicated therein, providing that there should not be any cut-off mark in the viva-voce test, the High Court cannot introduce the cut-off mark in the viva-voce test, which must have been introduced by the High Court as the result of the selection test has not been declared by combining the marks secured in the Main (Written) Examination and the viva-voce test. 4. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Hemani Malhotra Vs. 4. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11, the learned counsel further submits that in any case, in the absence of the prescription of minimum marks for the viva-voce test, either in the Rules or in the advertisement issued for recruitment to Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service, the High Court was not justified in not preparing the select list based on the marks secured in the Main (Written) Examination and viva-voce test, as it appears from the records that though the candidates have secured certain marks in the viva-voce test, their result has not been declared, which amounts to introduction of minimum cut-off mark in the viva-voce test. According to the learned counsel, the High Court in introducing the cut-off marks in the viva-voce test has changed the rules of the game, though there was no prescription of minimum marks to be secured in the viva-voce test either in the Rules or in the advertisement. The learned counsel in support of his contention has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi and anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 104 . 5. Mr. Murarka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the afore-mentioned writ petition, submits that the 2003 Rules, which has been framed having regard to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association's case, requires preparation of the select list and publication of the same based on the combined marks secured by a candidate in the written and the viva-voce tests and the petitioners, who have admittedly secured more than 60% marks in the written test and also secured some marks in the viva-voce test, the High Court, under the Rules, was bound to prepare the select list by combining both the marks and publish the same and thereafter to fill up the vacancies advertised in accordance with the position in the said merit list, which has not been done in the instant case. The learned counsel submits that though the minimum cut-off mark for the viva-voce test can be prescribed in the Rules, since there was no prescription of minimum cut-off mark either in the Rules or in the advertisement issued for the purpose of recruitment to Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service, the High Court was not justified in not preparing the select list based on the combined marks secured in the written as well as in the viva-voce tests by each of the candidates. Referring to the records produced by the learned standing counsel of the High Court, it has also been submitted that since certain marks were awarded to the candidates, who appeared in the viva-voce test and who admittedly secured more than 60% marks in the written test, the select list ought to have been prepared and published on the basis of the combined marks secured in both the tests. 6. The learned counsel referring to Justice Shetty Commission's report, which has been accepted by the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association's case with certain modifications, has submitted that non-preparation of the select list by the High Court despite the candidates securing certain marks in the viva-voce test, amounts to introduction of a cut-off marks, which is contrary to the recommendation in Justice Shetty Commission's report. The learned counsel also submits that such introduction of the cut-off mark in the viva-voce test, after the written test was held and the viva-voce test was conducted, amounts to changing of the rules of the game after the game was played. The learned counsel in this regard has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & anr. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 . 7. Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 1524/2012 and 2293/2012, adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Choudhury as well as Mr. Murarka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the afore-mentioned writ petitions, also submits that as the petitioners having qualified in the Main (Written) Examination for appearing in the viva-voce test and accordingly they appeared in such test, the High Court has to declare the result after combining the marks secured by the candidates both in the Main (Written) Examination as well as in the viva-voce test. According to the learned counsel, the action on the part of the High Court in not preparing the select list is in violation of the 2003 Rules, as amended. 8. Mr. Dey, learned standing counsel appearing for the High Court, on the other hand, referring to various provisions of 2003 Rules, as amended, has submitted that the object of the viva-voce test being to assess the suitability of the candidate by judging the mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, skills, attitude, ethics, power of assimilation, power of communication, character and intellectual depth, there has to be objective assessment of a candidate in such viva-voce test, which was done by the interview board consisting of 4 (four) Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It has also been submitted that the Recruitment Committee, based on the parameters prescribed in the 2003 Rules, for assessing the suitability of the candidates in the viva-voce test, have found none of the candidates, who appeared in such test suitable for appointment as Grade-I Officer in Tripura Judicial Service. The learned counsel referring to the marks secured by each of the candidates in the viva-voce test, has submitted that none of them has even secured 30% of marks in the viva-voce test, which indicates their unsuitability for being appointed as Grade-I Officer in Tripura Judicial Service. According to the learned counsel there being no allegation of malafide or bias in any of the writ petitions, the decision of the Recruitment Committee relating to the suitability of the candidates is not open to judicial review, as this Court cannot sit on appeal over such decision. Mr. Dey further submits that the Recruitment Committee never introduced any cut-off mark in the viva-voce test and the suitability of the candidates was assessed, based on the parameters prescribed in the Rules. The learned counsel further submits that as because a candidate has secured 60% or above marks in the Main (Written) Examination and accordingly he was called for viva-voce test, the 2003 Rules do not envisage preparation of a select list and appointment of a candidate in the Judicial Service, by simply combining the marks secured in the written as well as in the viva-voce test, even though such candidate is not found to be suitable in the viva-voce test. The learned counsel also submits that the essential attributes for selection of a candidate for appointment as Judicial Officer being to assess as to whether the candidate is intelligent, honest, has basic knowledge of law apart from integrity and robust common sense, the Recruitment Committee, as provided by the 2003 Rules, is within its right in not recommending any candidate for appointment, if they are not found to be suitable for the purpose of recruitment in Judicial Service. 9. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the State of Tripura has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Dey, learned standing counsel of the High Court. It has also been submitted that the State Government always accepts the recommendation made by the High Court for appointment in Judicial Service and since in the process initiated by issuing the advertisement dated 18.01.2011, no candidate has been found suitable for appointment in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service, no appointment could be made against the posts advertised. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also perused the pleadings of the parties apart from the records of selection produced by Mr. Dey, learned standing counsel of the High Court. 11. The 2003 Rules, which came into force on 29.10.2003, was framed by the Govt. of Tripura in consultation with the High Court and the Tripura Public Service Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 read with Article 234 of the Constitution of India, regulating the conditions of service and laying down the procedure for appointing the persons to Tripura Judicial Service. Rule 7 provides for method of recruitment and also the qualification and age limit prescribed for recruitment in Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III Judicial Service. There are three sources of recruitment in Grade-I Judicial Service, namely, by direct recruitment, by promotion from Grade-II service and by promotion through limited departmental competitive examination. The percentage of post earmarked for the said three sources of recruitment is 25%, 50% and 25%, respectively. The present writ petitions relate to the recruitment in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service by direct recruitment against the 25% of the posts to be filled up from amongst the advocates having the requisite qualification, on the basis of the aggregate marks/grade secured in the competitive examination conducted by the High Court as specified in Schedule-B of the Rules. 12. The present writ petitions relate to the recruitment in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service by direct recruitment against the 25% of the posts to be filled up from amongst the advocates having the requisite qualification, on the basis of the aggregate marks/grade secured in the competitive examination conducted by the High Court as specified in Schedule-B of the Rules. 12. Rule 9 of the 2003 Rules lays down the disqualification for appointment. Rule 10 provides for selection procedure, which, amongst other, provides that the High Court shall on the basis of cumulative grade value secured by a candidate, and taking into consideration the orders, if any, in force relating to the reservation of posts for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, prepare in order of merit, as provided in Schedule-B, the list of selected candidates, which shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified. Schedule-B to the 2003 Rules provides that there shall be a competitive examination for direct recruitment to the service in Grade-I, to be conducted by the High Court, which shall consists of three papers, namely, Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III, each carrying total 100 marks, syllabus for which has also been specified. The Schedule-B further provides for viva-voce test to be conducted on 50 marks. The Rules also require that all candidates who obtain 60% or more or corresponding grade in the written examination, shall be eligible for viva-voce test, which, however, is reduced to 50% or more marks or corresponding grade in case of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes candidates. The Schedule-B lays down the object of the viva-voce test and its parameters for effective assessment of the suitability of the candidate, which is reproduced below:- The object of the viva-voce test is to assess the suitability of the candidate for the cadre by judging the mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, skills, attitude, ethics, power of assimilation, power of communication, character and intellectual depth. Schedule-B requires to make ready a final select list by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written examination and in the viva-voce test. 13. All the writ petitioners, who belong to the general category, having secured 60% or more marks in the Main (Written) Examination, were called for viva-voce test held at Guwahati on 29.10.2011. Schedule-B requires to make ready a final select list by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written examination and in the viva-voce test. 13. All the writ petitioners, who belong to the general category, having secured 60% or more marks in the Main (Written) Examination, were called for viva-voce test held at Guwahati on 29.10.2011. The viva-voce test was conducted by an Interview Board consisting of 3 (three) senior most Judges and one Senior Judge of the High Court, who have awarded individual marks to each of the candidates, out of maximum 50 marks allotted for that purpose. The average marks secured by each of the 10 (ten) candidates appeared in the viva-voce test are reproduced below:- 14. The marks awarded by the Interview Board constituted for that purpose was, thereafter, placed before the Recruitment Committee, constituted for recruitment of Judicial Officers, in its proceeding dated 25.11.2011. The Recruitment Committee, having regard to the duties and responsibilities attached to the members of Grade-I service and also the power, apart from the object of the interview/viva-voce test of evaluating the quality and capacity of the candidate, so that the best available candidate is selected for the purpose to maintain the desirable standard of Subordinate Judiciary, did not find any of the candidates suitable for appointment to Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service. The proceeding of the Recruitment Committee was then placed before the Full Court, which having accepted such recommendation, the result was published on 01.12.2011 notifying that none has been selected for appointment. The list of selected candidates was, therefore, naturally not published, none of the candidates having been found suitable for recruitment in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service. The records of selection maintained by the High Court do not reveal introduction of any cut-off mark in the viva-voce test. 15. The Apex Court in All India Judges' Association's case has approved the recommendations in Justice Shetty Commission's report, with certain modifications, which also provides that there should not be any cut-off mark for viva-voce test for appointment to Higher Judicial Service. The 2003 Rules has been framed having regard to the direction issued by the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association's case. The 2003 Rules has been framed having regard to the direction issued by the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association's case. In Hemani Malhotra (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the challenge made to the notice issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) of Delhi High Court intimating that only three candidates were selected for recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service, has held that as at the beginning of the selection process, no minimum cut-off marks for the viva-voce test were prescribed for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for the interview, after the entire selection process was completed, amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. The Apex Court, however has held that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for the written examination and viva-voce test, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva-voce test before commencement of the selection process, the authority concerned cannot, either during the selection process or after selection process, add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. The Apex Court, having regard to the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission's report, which was approved by it in its earlier judgment passed in All India Judges' Association's case, relating to the prescription of the cut-off marks at the viva-voce test, has interfered with the decision of the Delhi High Court and directed preparation of a combined merit list by adding the marks obtained by the petitioners in the written examination to the marks obtained by them in the viva-voce test and declared the petitioners as selected for being recommended for appointment to the post in Delhi Higher Judicial Service. 16. In K. Manjusree (supra), the Apex Court, while considering the question as to whether the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in preparing the fresh selection list by applying the requirement of minimum marks for interview, is legal and valid, has held that introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process, consisting of written examination and interview, was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played, which is impermissible in law. 17. 17. As discussed above, neither the Committee constituted for recruitment of Grade-I Officers in Tripura Judicial Service nor the Full Court of this High Court has introduced any cut-off marks in the viva-voce test. The Recruitment Committee, however, did not find any of the candidates suitable for appointment, after assessing their suitability based on the parameters stipulated in the 2003 Rules. 18. The object of any process of selection for entry into public service is to secure the best and the suitable person for the job. The selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. The Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & ors. reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417 has opined that while a written examination assesses the candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, a viva-vice test seeks to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities. It has also been observed that while a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the viva-voce test, there are yet no written test, which can evaluate the candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity, some of which qualities can be evaluated by viva-voce test, much depending on the constitution of the interview board. The Apex Court further opined that there can, therefore, be no doubt that the viva-voce test performs a very useful function in assessing personal characteristics and traits and in fact, tests the man himself and is, therefore, regarded as an important tool along with the written examination. 19. The Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar (supra) has observed that the interview may also be the best mode of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position as it brings out the overall intellectual qualities of the candidates. It has also been observed that while the written test will testify the candidate's academic knowledge, the oral test can bring out or disclose overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership etc. which are also essential of a Judicial Officer. It has also been observed that while the written test will testify the candidate's academic knowledge, the oral test can bring out or disclose overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership etc. which are also essential of a Judicial Officer. The Apex Court, however, having regard to the relevant Rules which do not prescribe any cut-off mark in the viva-voce test as well as its earlier decision in All India Judges' Association's case, and also Justice Shetty Commission's report stipulating that there cannot be any minimum marks for interview, has interfered with the selection in the said case as the minimum cut-off mark in the viva-voce test was introduced after the selection test was held. 20. The object of having an effective and efficient justice delivery system would not be achieved unless suitable and competent persons are appointed as Judicial Officers. Justice, which means fair and proper administration of law, as mandated by the Constitution, cannot be ensured to the citizen unless justice is delivered timely, fairly, efficiently, expeditiously and cost effectively. To deliver quality, efficient and timely justice, the justice delivery system is to be managed by most efficient persons. Speedy, efficient and competent trial is the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Grade-I Officers in the judicial service being in the rank of District & Sessions Judge, they are, apart from deciding the cases, must also have management and leadership skills for efficient management of the justice delivery system in the districts, having regard to the huge pendency of cases. A person, having high level of expertise, ability to absorb and analyze information, integrity and independence of mind, decisiveness, objectivity, ability and willingness to learn and develop professionally, ability to work constructively with others, ability to inspire respect and confidence, ability to maintain authority when challenged, ability to work at speed and under pressure, ability to organize time effectively, apart from the leadership and management skills, is suitable for appointment in Grade-I judicial service, having regard to the duties and responsibilities attached to such service. The qualities and the abilities of a person for being appointed in Grade-I judicial service cannot be judged only by conducting the written test, as certain qualities and abilities can be judged only in the viva-voce test and hence conduct of such test assumes importance in selecting a person for appointment in Grade-I judicial service. Viva-voce test is, therefore, in no stress of imagination, be treated as a mere formality. The 2003 Rules, having regard to the aforesaid object, provides for the assessment of suitability of a candidate for appointment in Grade-I judicial service, in the parameters stipulated therein, which has already been noticed above. 21. Grade-I Judicial Service being in the highest echelon of the hierarchy of Judicial Service apart from the amplitude of power attached to it, the overall suitability of the candidates is of paramount significance. As noticed above, the suitability of a candidate for appointment in Grade-I Judicial Service, in relation to the candidate's mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, skills, attitude, ethics, power of assimilation, power of communication, character and intellectual depth, has to be assessed in the viva-voce test, which, therefore, plays a very important role in selecting the best person for being recommended for appointment in Judicial Service that too in Grade-I Judicial Service, which is in highest echelon in the service. The importance of assessment of the suitability of the candidate in the viva-voce test, therefore, cannot at all be ignored. 22. As discussed above, the Recruitment Committee having regard to the marks secured by each of the candidates in the viva-voce test, which is in fact even less than 30%, did not find any of the candidates suitable for recruitment in Grade-I Judicial Service. The writ court cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by the interview board, in the absence of any allegation of malafide or arbitrariness. On the other hand, the Recruitment Committee has decided not to recommend the names of any of the candidates for recruitment in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service, having regard to the suitability of the candidate as assessed by the interview board in the viva-voce test, which was done in accordance with the provisions of 2003 Rules and on the parameter for assessment of the suitability of the candidate in the viva-voce test. 23. 23. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the candidates, who appeared for the viva-voce test, have secured certain marks in such test, the High Court, under the Rules, was bound to prepare a select list and publish the same and thereafter to appoint the persons against the posts advertised in terms of their position in the merit list, cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the Recruitment Committee did not find any candidate suitable for appointment in the Grade-I Service. In the event of acceptance of such arguments, as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there could be occasion where a person who though did well in the written test but did not secure a single mark in the viva-voce test will have to be appointed, thereby rendering the object of having the viva-voce test otiose, which would also be contrary to the 2003 Rules. Such an approach would definitely defeat the very object of having the viva-voce test. Hence such argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and hence those are dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed