JUDGMENT Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J. 1. The petitioners, who applied for selection for appointment in Grade-I Assam Judicial Service, by these writ petitions, have challenged the result of the selection notified on 01.12.2011, in so far as their non-selection against the post advertised. Since both the writ petitions relates to the same selection process, those are taken up for hearing and disposal together, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. An advertisement dated 18.01.2011 was issued by the Registrar (Judicial)-cum-In Charge Recruitment Cell of this Court inviting applications to fill up 16(sixteen) vacant posts (actual and anticipated) in Grade-I Assam Judicial Service by direct recruitment under the provisions of Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003 (in short the 2003 Rules). A number of candidates, including the petitioners submitted their applications, who appeared in the preliminary examination/screening test (multiple choice questions) on 12.06.2011. 84 candidates, including the petitioners were declared as qualified for the Main (Written) Examination scheduled to be held on 30th and 31st July, 2011. The petitioners along with others appeared in the said Main (Written) Examination, result of which was declared on 29.09.2011 declaring altogether 19 candidates, including the petitioners, as qualified for the interview/viva-voce test, who accordingly appeared in the viva-voce test. The final result of the selection test was declared on 01.12.2011 selecting only 5(five) candidates, who are the private respondents in the writ petitions. Hence the present writ petitions. 2. We have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3364/2012; Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 99/2013; Mr. N. Choudhury, learned standing counsel of the High Court; Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel, Mr. A.D. Choudhury, Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah and Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and Mr. J. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the State of Assam. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, referring to the provisions of 2003 Rules, have submitted that the Rules having not prescribed any bench mark or cut off mark in the viva-voce test, unlike in the written test, the High Court was not justified in not selecting the petitioners, who having secured more than 60% marks in the written test were called for viva-voce test, for appointment in Grade-I Assam Judicial Service. According to the learned counsel the petitioners have not been selected for appointment as Selection Committee has put the bench mark or cut off mark in the viva-voce test, which in any case cannot be done without their being any such prescription in the Rules. It has also been submitted that neither in the advertisement nor at any stage subsequent thereto and before conducting the selection test any decision was taken by the High Court to introduce the bench mark or cut off mark in the viva-voce test and the petitioners having secured certain marks in the viva-voce test, they ought to have been selected for appointment. According to the learned counsel, in view of the recommendation made by Justice Shetty Commission in his report and acceptance of such recommendation by the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors. reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 , in any case, there cannot be any cut off mark in the viva-voce test and as such the non-selection of the petitioners despite securing certain marks in the viva-voce test amounts to introduction of cut off mark in such test, which is contrary to the 2003 Rules as well as the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. 4. The learned counsel, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi and anr. reported in (2010)3 SCC 104 as well as in Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008)7 SCC 11, have also submitted that 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 Assam 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. 5. 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. 5. The learned counsel drawing the attention of the Court to the marks secured in the written as well as viva-voce test by the petitioners have, therefore, submitted that since the petitioners have been awarded certain marks in the viva-voce test and there cannot be any cut off mark in such viva-voce test, the High Court is bound to declare the result of the selection test declaring the petitioners as selected for appointment in Grade-I Assam Judicial Service, having regard to the number of vacancies available. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, have submitted that they have no grievance against the selection of private respondents and what the petitioners have prayed for is to declare them as selected for appointment in Grade-I Assam Judicial Service, having regard to the marks secured by them in the written as well as in the viva-voce test. 6. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the High Court, referring to various provisions of 2003 Rules, has submitted that the object of the viva-voce test being 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, there has to be objective assessment of a candidate in such viva-voce test, which was done by the interview board consisting of the 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 the petitioners not suitable for appointment as Grade-I Officer in Assam Judicial Service. The learned counsel referring to the marks secured by the petitioners in the viva-voce test, has submitted that they have even did not secure 30% of marks in the viva-voce test, which indicates their unsuitability for being appointed as Grade-I Officer in Assam Judicial Service. The learned counsel referring to the marks secured by the petitioners in the viva-voce test, has submitted that they have even did not secure 30% of marks in the viva-voce test, which indicates their unsuitability for being appointed as Grade-I Officer in Assam 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. Choudhury 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 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 as Judicial Service. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as the learned State counsel adopting the arguments advanced by the learned standing counsel of the High Court, have submitted that no illegality has been committed in not selecting the petitioners for appointment in Grade-I Assam Judicial Service, as they have not been found suitable for that purpose in the viva-voce test, in accordance with the provisions of 2003 Rules. 8. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties received our due consideration. We have also perused the pleadings of the parties and records of selection produced by the learned standing counsel of the High Court. 9. 8. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties received our due consideration. We have also perused the pleadings of the parties and records of selection produced by the learned standing counsel of the High Court. 9. The 2003 Rules, which came into force on 17.02.2006, was framed by the Govt. of Assam, in consultation with the High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 read with Article 234 of the Constitution of India, regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to Assam 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 Assam 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. 10. 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 four papers, namely, Paper-I, Paper-II, Paper-III and Paper-IV. While Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III carries total 100 marks, syllabus for which has also been specified, Paper-IV, by which the proficiency of the candidate in official language is tested, carries total 50 marks. The Schedule-B further provides for viva-voce test to be conducted on 50 marks. While Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III carries total 100 marks, syllabus for which has also been specified, Paper-IV, by which the proficiency of the candidate in official language is tested, carries total 50 marks. 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 examination under sub-rule (1) and (2) 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 and like of the candidate. 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. 11. 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, which was conducted by an Interview Board consisting of senior Judges 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 19(nineteen) candidates appeared in the viva-voce test are reproduced below:-- 12. The proceeding of the Interview Board dated 29.10.2011 and 30.10.2011, 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, found 5(five) candidates suitable for appointment to Grade-I Assam 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 5(five) candidates have been selected for appointment. The records of selection maintained by the High Court do not reveal introduction of any cut-off mark in the viva-voce test. 13. 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. 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 thereafter, 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 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. 14. 14. As discussed above, neither the Committee constituted for recruitment of Grade-I Officers in Assam Judicial Service nor the Full Court of this High Court has introduced any cut-off marks in the viva-voce test. The Committee, however, found only 5(five) candidates suitable for appointment, after assessing their suitability based on the parameters stipulated in the 2003 Rules. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 manned 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, as noticed above, 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. 18. 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. 19. As discussed above, the Recruitment Committee having regard to the marks secured by each of the candidates in the viva-voce test, which is even less than 20%, did not find the petitioners 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 the petitioners for recruitment in Grade-I Assam Judicial Service, having regard to their suitability 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. 20. 20. 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 the petitioners 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