ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. The selection which is in question in the present batch of cases is to the Grade-I service of the Assam Judicial Service, Tripura Judicial Service and Mizoram Judicial Service, which is governed by the Assam Judicial Service Rules 2003, 1 [“2003 Rules”]. 3. The relevant dates for the purpose of evaluating the merits of the petitioners are as follows : (i) On 18 January 2011, an advertisement was issued under the 2003 Rules. This was followed by the written examination which consisted of four papers. Of these, Paper-IV was for language proficiency for the region; (ii) On 29 October 2011, the viva voce was conducted for 19 candidates; (iii) On 25 November 2011, the Committee for Recruitment of Judicial Officers conducted its meeting for selection of candidates for direct recruitment to Grade-I of the Assam Judicial Service, Tripura Judicial Service and Mizoram Judicial Service for 2011; (iv) On 1 December 2011, a select list of successful candidates was published in which five candidates were notified to have been selected. 4. After withdrawing a petition which was filed before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners moved the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. During the course of the hearing of the petitions, the High Court directed the disclosure of marks, following which marks were disclosed to the unsuccessful candidates who were before the High Court. The petitioners failed before the High Court. 6. The submission which has been urged in the proceedings before this Court is that after the interview was conducted on 29 October 2011, a cut off of 40% marks was prescribed by the Committee for Recruitment on 25 November 2011. In order to support the submission, counsel relied upon the counter affidavit which was filed before the High Court. 7. In order to obviate any controversy on the factual aspect, Mr. P. I. Jose, counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court, has placed on the record copies of the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee for Recruitment of Judicial Officers held on 25 November 2011. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the High Court is that in Paper-IV, which was a qualifying examination for language proficiency, a cut off of 35% was adopted. 8. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the High Court is that in Paper-IV, which was a qualifying examination for language proficiency, a cut off of 35% was adopted. 8. The Minutes which have been placed on the record make it abundantly clear that no cut off was prescribed for the interview and the merit list was drawn up on the basis of a cumulative aggregation of the marks which were obtained in the three papers of the written test and the interview marks. 9. The selection in the present case pertains to the year 2011. The officers who were selected in pursuance of the selection process have already taken charge. The High Court has also apprised this Court that subsequently two further selections have taken place for the State Judicial Service. 10. In view of the above factual background, the issue which was sought to be raised in the reference to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4 SCC 540 would not arise in the facts of the present batch of cases. 11. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. 12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.