Minimum interview marks and reservation roster compliance upheld in judicial service selection under the governing service rules.

Under the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, the High Court was held entitled to prescribe minimum qualifying marks in the oral examination because the rules permitted it to devise the selection procedure for assessing suitability, and the interview was a legitimate tool for judging fitness for judicial office. The 30% benchmark in viva voce was therefore valid. On the reservation challenge, the select list was upheld because the roster under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 was applied, vacant reserved points were filled by open merit candidates where permitted, and no impermissible de-reservation was shown. Participation without protest and non-joinder also weighed against relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could prescribe minimum qualifying marks in the oral examination under the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991. (ii) Whether the select list was vitiated for non-compliance with the reservation rules under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could prescribe minimum qualifying marks in the oral examination under the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991.

Analysis: Rule 7 required the High Court to hold written and oral examinations and prepare a list of candidates found suitable for appointment. The expression "such procedure as the High Court deems fit" was held to confer sufficient latitude to evolve a selection procedure for assessing suitability. The oral interview was treated as an important component for judging qualities relevant to judicial office, and the prescription of a low minimum benchmark of 30% in the interview was viewed as a rational standard to screen unsuited candidates. The earlier decisions relied on by the appellants were distinguished because they turned on different rules that expressly required aggregation of written and viva voce marks for the final merit list.

Conclusion: The prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the oral examination was valid and was not contrary to the Rules.

Issue (ii): Whether the select list was vitiated for non-compliance with the reservation rules under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958.

Analysis: Once the challenge to the interview benchmark failed, the attack on the select list on reservation grounds did not survive in the same manner. The list was found to have been prepared by applying the reservation roster under Rules 14 to 17, and where no reserved candidate was available for a particular roster point, the vacancy was filled by an open merit candidate in accordance with Rule 15. The Court also held that there was no case of impermissible de-reservation by the High Court, since the list was forwarded to and approved by the Government. The appellants were further held disentitled to relief because they had participated in the selection process without protest, and the challenge was also met by the objection of non-joinder of necessary parties.

Conclusion: The select list was not vitiated by violation of the reservation rules, and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The selection process for appointment to the Kerala Judicial Service was upheld in its entirety, and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing service rules confer on the High Court power to hold written and oral examinations and to devise the selection procedure, the High Court may prescribe a minimum qualifying standard in the interview to assess suitability, and reservation roster points may be filled in accordance with the applicable roster rules without invalidating the select list.

---