JUDGMENT (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Mr. K. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance articulated in the writ petition is encapsulated in paragraph No.3 of the writ petition, which reads as under: “The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not calling the petitioners for interview for the post of District Judge (Entry level) and for not providing/publishing the marks obtained by the petitioners in the written test and by calling only four (4) candidates for viva-voce to be held on 30-07-2021, instead of eighteen (18) candidates against the vacancies of six (6) vacancies which was mentioned in the notification No.24/2019-RC. Dated 11-09-2019 as the same is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.” 3. The petitioners by way of interim measure pray for a direction not to conduct viva-voce without providing hall ticket wise marks’ list of written examination. 4. Viva-voce is fixed today and four candidates had been called for the same. The names of the petitioners do not figure in the list of candidates called for viva-voce. 5. In order to appreciate the challenge made, it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant facts. 6. The Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Andhra Pradesh had issued a notification dated 11.09.2019, inviting applications through offline for General recruitment to 6 posts of District Judge (Entry level) in Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service under the direct recruitment quota. Four posts were allotted to general category, out of which two posts were reserved for women. Both the petitioners belong to general category and they had applied pursuant to the notification dated 11.09.2019. 7. Result of the screening test was announced on 01.02.2021 and the petitioners came out successful and in consequence thereof, the petitioners had appeared for the written examination held on 27.03.2021 and 28.03.2021. It is averred that 72 candidates were qualified for writing written examination. 8. It is not in dispute that the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2007’) prescribes, amongst others, Constitution of service, Appointment, Eligibility, Methodology for conducting examination etc., as applicable to the recruitment process undertaken. 9. It is averred that 72 candidates were qualified for writing written examination. 8. It is not in dispute that the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2007’) prescribes, amongst others, Constitution of service, Appointment, Eligibility, Methodology for conducting examination etc., as applicable to the recruitment process undertaken. 9. The petitioners have sought to rely upon, what they call Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2007, with regard to the methodology to be applied for conducting the examination. It is stated in paragraph No.8 as follows: “………the action of the respondents in evaluation of the written test is not at all questionable by the petitioners. However, the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 states the methodology for conducting the Judicial entry level examination under rule 6(4) explains about the methodology as written hereunder: ‘The written examination shall variably 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.’ It is humbly submitted that the above mentioned rule even though it has been over ruled out the role of the said rule may be used for the purpose, to provide natural justice to the needy people, who deserves it.” 10. It is relevant to extract Clause IX of the advertisement, which reads as follows: “MERIT LIST: After result of written examination is announced, qualified candidates in the ratio of 1:3 of the available vacancies in the respective categories shall be called for Viva Voce. Provided that if there are more than one candidate who have secured identical cut off marks, for maintaining the ratio of 1: 3, all such candidates shall be called upon to appear for Viva-Voce.” 11. Provided that if there are more than one candidate who have secured identical cut off marks, for maintaining the ratio of 1: 3, all such candidates shall be called upon to appear for Viva-Voce.” 11. By relying upon what they call Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2007, it is sought to be contended that Column IV of the notification dated 13.09.2021 is contrary to Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2007 as Column IV prescribes as follows: “The candidates applying under Direct recruitment who belong to OC category must secure less than 55% of marks in each paper and not less than 60% of marks in aggregate in the written examination shall be eligible for Viva-voce carrying 50 marks. The candidates belonging to backward class category under direct recruitment must secure not less than 50% marks in each paper and not less than 55% of marks in aggregate in the written examination shall be eligible for viva-voce carrying 50 marks. The candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories must secure not less than 45% marks in each paper and not less than 45% marks in each paper and not less than 50% of marks in aggregate in the written examination shall be eligible for Viva-voce carrying 50 marks. The object of the written examination is to test the academic knowledge of the candidates.” 12. It is to be noted that the petitioners have relied on un-amended Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2007. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2007, in its entirety, was substituted by G.O.Ms.No.29 Law (LA&J -SC.F) Department, dated 28.07.2017 in exercise of the powers conferred by the Articles 233, 234, 235, 237 read with the proviso to Article 309 and proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2007, in its entirety, was substituted by G.O.Ms.No.29 Law (LA&J -SC.F) Department, dated 28.07.2017 in exercise of the powers conferred by the Articles 233, 234, 235, 237 read with the proviso to Article 309 and proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India. The substituted rule, so far as the same is relevant for the purpose of this case, reads as follows: “6) Recruitment, methodology for conducting examination, selection process, fee etc., (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) Every year, the High Court, by advertisement in at least two newspapers, one in Telugu and the other in English and in the Official Gazette of the Government, invite applications in such form as it may determine from the intending candidates who possess the qualifications for filling the vacancies, indicating, inter-alia, the eligibility criteria, the syllabus, the number of marks allotted for written examination, the qualifying marks to be secured by a candidate, the number of marks allotted for the viva voce, the ratio in which the candidates are to be called for the written examination /Viva Voce. The advertisement shall also specify that the recruitment to these posts shall be made in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. (d) For the purpose of short listing the candidates, who will be applying for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) by direct recruitment and Accelerated Recruitment by Transfer and for the post of Civil Judge, the High Court may, if necessary hold a screening test comprising of multiple choice objective type questions, on OMR Technology basis, and call upon the candidates in the ratio of 1: 10 of the available vacancies, who have secured 40% and above marks in the Screening Test for a written examination. Provided that if there are more than one candidate who have secured identical marks in the screening test, all such candidates shall be called for the written examination. (e) xxx (f) The candidates applying for being appointed under Direct Recruitment who secures not less than 55% of marks in each paper and not less than 60% of marks in aggregate in the written examination shall be eligible for viva voce carrying 50 marks. (e) xxx (f) The candidates applying for being appointed under Direct Recruitment who secures not less than 55% of marks in each paper and not less than 60% of marks in aggregate in the written examination shall be eligible for viva voce carrying 50 marks. Provided that the candidates belonging to Backward Class category who secure not less than 50% marks in each paper and not less than 55% of marks in aggregate in the written examination shall be eligible for the Viva Voce: Provided further that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who secure not less than 45% marks in each paper and not less than 50% of marks in aggregate in the written examination shall be eligible for the viva voce: Provided also that, the High Court shall call the candidates for viva voce for the post of Civil Judge/District Judge in the ratio of 1: 3 of the available vacancies to the successful candidates: Provided also that if there are more than one candidate who have secured identical cut off marks, for maintaining the ratio of 1: 3, all such candidates shall be called upon to appear for Viva Voce: Provided also that only such candidates who secures at least 60% marks in aggregate in written examination and viva voce and above in respect of OC/BC category and 50% marks in aggregate in written examination and viva voce and above in SC/ST category shall be eligible for selection. (g) xxx (h) xxx (i) xxx (j) xxx (k) xxx (l) xxx (m) xxx (n) xxx (o) xxx (p) xxx (q) xxx (r) xxx (s) xxx 13. A bare perusal of Rule, as amended, goes to show that column IV conforms to the prescription as laid down in Rule 6(f) of Rules of 2007, as amended, so far as it relates to marks that have to be obtained by a candidate to be called for the viva-voce. 14. On the basis of the proviso to Rule 6(f) with regard to number of candidates to be called for viva-voce, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the available vacancies are six, going by the ratio of 1:3 of the available vacancies in the respective categories, 18 candidates ought to have been called for the viva-voce and by calling only four candidates, the petitioners have been illegally deprived from participating in the viva-voce. 15. 15. The argument is fallacious on the face of it. What the provision stipulates is that qualified candidates in the ratio of 1:3 of the available vacancies would be called for. The key words are “qualified candidates”. If there are no qualified candidates in the ratio of 1:3, only the candidates who are qualified, would have to be called for the viva-voce. If the qualified candidates do not match 1:3 ratio, no fault can be found with the authorities for not being able to maintain 1:3 ratio. 1:3 ratio is provided for the simple reason that if many candidates are successful in the written examination, based on the marks obtained in the written examination, candidates would be called for the viva-voce in 1:3 ratio. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that failure to call the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 has caused prejudice to the petitioners. 16. Another grievance expressed during the course of submission is that the marks of the petitioners had not been disclosed. 17. It is submitted by Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar that the petitioners had not become eligible to be called for to the viva-voce as they had not fulfilled the requirement of marks as laid down in Rule 6(f) of the Rules of 2007, as amended. It is also submitted that no marks had been disclosed to anybody. It is further submitted by Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar that after the result of the selection is notified, any candidate desiring to obtain marks secured by them in the written examination, will be entitled to apply for the same and then, the marks will be furnished. 18. In view of the above submission of Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, we do not consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to furnish marks of the written examination at this stage. 19. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, we reserve liberty to the writ petitioners to pursue remedy as may be available in law, after obtaining their marks in the written examination subsequent to declaration of the selected candidates, if so advised. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.