Archana K.R vs State Of Kerala on 24 May, 2022

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Archana K.R vs State Of Kerala on 24 May, 2022

The judgment rendered on 12.11.2021 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P(C) No.17180/2019 is under challenge in the instant intra court appeal instituted under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. The sole appellant in the W.A is the sole petitioner in the W.P(C), and the respondents in the W.A are the respondents in the W.P(C).

2. Heard Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the W.A/petitioner in the W.P(C), Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court of Kerala appearing for R2, Sri.Saigi Jaob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R1-State of Kerala and Sri.Rajit, learned Advocate appearing for contesting respondent No.3 in the W.A/R3 in the W.P(C).

3. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P(C) No.17180/2019 filed by the appellant herein are as follows: W.A No.1699 of 2021 3

"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit-P6 and quash the same to the extent it places the 3 rd respondent above petitioner;

(b) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be placed above the 3rd respondent in Exhibit-P6 at Sl.No.7 and that the 3 rd respondent in Exhibit-P6 at Sl.No.7 and that the 3 rd respondent is liable to be placed only at Sl.No.8 below the petitioner and direct the respondents accordingly;

(c) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit-P7 and quash the same to the extent it includes the 3rd respondent and excludes the petitioner;

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent No.2 to include the petitioner in Exhibit-P7 in place of the 3 rd respondent and direct further to grant the consequential benefits thereof;

(e) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 2 and 1 to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of District & Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service, along with those who are included in Exhibit-P7 with all consequential benefits arising therefrom, including the benefit of such appointment from the date of appointment of those who are included in Exhibit-P7;

(f) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P12 and quash the same, duly declaring that among the candidates who secure equal marks in the written and interview at the end of the recruitment process, those who secure higher marks in the interview are to be preferred. If the marks in the viva-voce are also identical, then the person with longer length of practice as an Advocate should be given preference, and if length of practice is also the same, then the one who had secured more marks in the judgment writing papers should be prepared, only when all the above factors are equal, the elder among the candidates are to be preferred, and direct the respondents accordingly;

W.A No.1699 of 2021 4

(g) Award costs of and incidental to this Writ Petition (Civil);

(h) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Both the appellant/petitioner and R3 had applied in response to Ext.P-1 selection notification dated 21.11.2017, issued by the 2nd respondent-High Court on the administrative side, for selection to the post of District & Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services, by direct recruitment, from the Bar against NCA vacancies in the Scheduled Caste reserved turn. As per the norms contained in Ext.P-10 statutory rules for appointment to the post of District & Sessions Judges in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services, more particularly, Rule 2(c) thereof, 300 marks are set apart for written examination and 50 marks are set apart for interview/viva voce and the general and other backward classes candidates should secure a minimum of 40% marks and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates should secure a minimum of 35% marks for passing the interview/viva voce. Based on the process of selection, the appellant secured 97.5 marks out of 300 in the written examination and she secured 24 out of 50 marks in the interview thus, totalling to 121.5 marks. Whereas, R3 secured 102.5 marks out of 300 in the written examination and 19 marks out of 50 in the interview, thus W.A No.1699 of 2021 5 totalling to 121.5 marks, as can be seen from Sl.Nos.50 & 89 respectively, made out in Ext.P-8 mark list. Based on Annexure R2(a)/Ext.P-12 norms, where there is a tie, the same is to be resolved on the basis of the age of the candidates and if age is also the same, then on the basis of longer period of practice. Since R3 was older to the petitioner, the competent authority of the 2nd respondent has granted higher ranking to R3 in comparison to the appellant. We are told that there are two NCA vacancies for Scheduled Castes in the NCA turn. The first vacancy was given to Sl.No.1 of Ext.P-7 select list, and the second vacancy was given to the 3 rd respondent, after resolving the tie as above. It is on this basis that Ext.P-7 select list has been issued, whereby Sl.No.1 thereof and Sl.No.2 thereof (R3 herein) have been selected and appointed to the two vacancies set apart for NCA selection in the SC reserved turn.

5. The main contention raised by the appellant/petitioner is that the formula for breaking the tie, as made out in Annexure R2(a)/Ext.P-12 is irrational and unreasonable, and in a scenario like this, the very objective of breaking the tie is to select the better among the two equally placed candidates and that the Apex Court has held in a series of decisions cited by the appellant that, interview is the best method for selection, especially to judicial posts. That therefore, when the very objective of W.A No.1699 of 2021 6 breaking the tie is to select the better or the best amongst the candidates, having equal marks in the written examination and the interview, then the tie should have been resolved on the basis of the candidate who has got more marks in the interview. If both candidates had equal marks, then Bar seniority should have been examined, for that is more relevant for the objective sought to be achieved, since the feeder source of appointment is from Advocates enrolled in the Bar.

6. Yet another contention has also been raised before us by Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, during the course of the hearing. The said contention is that Annexure-R2(a)/Ext.P-12 norms have been issued by the 2 nd respondent, as early as on 10.11.1987, that it was issued at the time when the sole criteria for selection was only by resort to interview/viva voce. At that time, where two candidates are equally ranked, it is because both of them have secured equal marks in the interview, and so at that time, there was no question of adopting interview marks as the criteria for resolution of the tie. Whereas, subsequently, much thereafter, the very criteria for selection has been changed and 300 marks have been allotted for the written examination and 50 marks have been allotted for interview. That therefore, there has been a change in the scenario after the issuance of W.A No.1699 of 2021 7 Annexure-R2(a) norms dated 10.11.1987. Therefore, continuing to adopt the very same norm in Annexure-R2(a), which is outdated, and that too on the criteria of age, is irrational, as contended above, and that the first contention is reinforced more by this crucial aspect of the matter. The abovesaid contention has been resisted by the 2 nd respondent and the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent-State also has broadly adopted the submissions of the 2nd respondent.

7. The prime contention urged by Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for R2, on the basis of the pleadings in the two statements filed at the W.P(C) stage as well as the affidavit filed in this W.A, is that it may be true that Annexure-R2(a) norms were issued on 10.11.1987, at a time when the sole criteria for selection was only on the basis of interview/viva voce. But later, the Apex Court has rendered a decision on 21.03.2002 in the celebrated case in All India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2002) 4 SCC 247], wherein the Apex Court has ordered, as per para.28 thereof that, the selection, by way of direct recruitment to the post of District Judges, shall be done on the basis of written examination and viva voce test, conducted by the respective High Courts. That, this was on the basis of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, as can be seen from a W.A No.1699 of 2021 8 reading of para.27 of All India Judges' Association's case supra. That thereafter, the Rules would have been amended, and the criteria for selection is on the basis of written examination and viva test, as above. Further that, Ext.P-10 Rules would provide specifically, as per Rule 2(c) thereof, that the total marks in the written examination will be 300 marks and that for the interview would be 5o marks and the candidates should secure the minimum marks for the interview, as mentioned above. That, even after the change of the criteria, the competent authority of the 2nd respondent, has consciously decided not to make any alteration to the tie breaking formula, adopted in terms of Annexure-R2(a) dated 10.11.1987. That, this was a conscious policy decision, inasmuch as only 1/7th of the total marks is set apart for the interview. That in other words, 86% of the total marks is set apart for written examination and roughly about 14% is set apart for interview and it was reckoned that adopting interview marks, as the tie breaking formula, would be giving disproportionate emphasis on the interview component, which is having only 14% weightage of the total marks. So also, the competent authority has thought it fit that the written examination may also not be the criteria for breaking the tie. The candidates for selection, by way of direct recruitment to the post of District Judges, would be in the age range of 35 W.A No.1699 of 2021 9 to 45. Most of the candidates, who ultimately get selection, would be in the age range of 40's. It was considered that, when the merit and suitability of two candidates are found equal based on the criteria of selection, then the candidate having more age could be preferred, as it could be generally presumed that such a candidate, who is older in age, would be more mature, sober and more experienced in life. In that regard, an adjudicator or a judge should be extremely good in dealing and understanding human affairs and life in general and therefore, it was thought fit that the earlier criteria of age would subserve the interest of selecting the better candidate among the two meritorious candidates, for breaking the tie. Further that, the more aged candidates may not have a chance to apply for the next selection and that could also be one rational basis for justifying the abovesaid preference of age, etc. It is also pointed out that the age formula is also resorted to, for breaking the tie in seniority of in-service candidates, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 27 of KS&SSR Part-II. Further that, the PSC office manual also exclusively provides that for their selection, when two candidates are found to be of equal merit, then the tie breaking formula is on the basis of age. Further that, the contention of the petitioner, based on the norms of the UPSC as per Ext.P-11 is misplaced, inasmuch as a reading of Ext.P-11 norms of the W.A No.1699 of 2021 10 UPSC would make it clear that different criteria is prescribed for different posts for breaking the tie and there is no uniform formula prescribed by the PSC for the UPSC and even age could also be the tie breaking formula in appropriate posts, etc. On the legal contention, the learned counsel appearing for R2 would strongly urge that the decisions relied on by the appellant, to argue that the Apex Court has held that the interview is the best method for selection in the case of judicial post, etc., should be read in the context of the issues that were posed and decided in those cases. Those aspects of the matter shall be dealt with by us hereinafter. Further that, the statutory rules of recruitment, as in Ext.P-10 as well as the general rules as per KS&SSR, are silent about the tie breaking formula and therefore, the competent authority of the 2nd respondent has the jurisdictional competence to stipulate the norms for tie breaking resolution, as in Annexure-R2(a)/Ext.P-12, etc.

8. Sri.Rajit, learned counsel appearing for R3 would also submit, on the basis of pleadings in the counter affidavit filed by that party in the W.P(C) that, his party has already been appointed as Additional District & Sessions Judge, in pursuance of Ext.P-7 approved select list and further that she had a successful practice as an Advocate in this Court and later she had shifted her legal practice to the Apex Court and she had even W.A No.1699 of 2021 11 qualified the coveted and highly competitive examination for qualifying as an Advocate on record of the Apex Court and that ever since her enrolment as an Advocate in the year 2003, she has shown her skills and merit as an Advocate. Further that, even the provisions of KS&SSR, as per Rule 27(a) & Rule 27 (e) of KS&SSR Part-II, adopted age as the tie breaking formula for determining inter se seniority of in-service candidates, where both have otherwise the same seniority.

9. We have heard all the parties concerned in extenso on more than one occasion and we have given our anxious consideration on the rival pleas as well as the pleadings and materials on record.

10. At the outset, it has to be noted that the norms in Annexure R2(a)/Ext.P-12, issued on 10.11.1987 by the Full Court of the 2nd respondent-High Court, has provided the formula for tie breaking and the said norms, made out as per clause.X of Annexure R2(a), reads as follows :

"X. If there are more than one candidate securing identical number of marks and only one or some of them alone have to be selected, the candidate who is older in age shall be preferred. If the age of the candidates is also identical, the one with longer period of practice shall be preferred. If the length of practice is also identical, the Committee shall decide who among the candidates, who have secured equal number of marks, should be selected taking into consideration all relevant factors."

So there is no dispute that, going by Annexure R2(a)/Ext.P-12, where two W.A No.1699 of 2021 12 candidates have the same merit in the selection process, then the person having more age is to be preferred and if both the candidates are having the same age, then the person having longer period of Bar practice should be preferred. If both candidates are having same length of Bar standing, then it is for the 2nd respondent to consider all relevant aspects of the matter and to take an appropriate decision in a given case. It is true that Annexure R2(a)/Ext.P-12 norms have been issued as early as on 10.11.1987. So also, it is true that Annexure R2(a) norms have been issued at a time when interview/viva voce test was the sole criteria for selection, by way of direct recruitment of District Judges. Much later, the Apex Court in the celebrated decision rendered on 21.03.2002 in the case of All India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., has noted that the Shetty Commission has recommended that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service post of District Judge, from amongst advocates, should be 25% and the process of recruitment is to be by competitive examination, both written and viva voce (refer para.27 thereof). As per direction No.(c) of para.28, the Apex Court has ordered that, 25% of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates, on the basis of written and viva voce tests, conducted by the respective High Courts. The counter W.A No.1699 of 2021 13 affidavit dated 22.01.2022, filed by the 2 nd respondent in this appeal, more particularly, para.5, etc., would clearly indicate that, after the rendering of the abovesaid directions by the Apex Court on 21.03.2002, the 2nd respondent has conducted direct recruitment selection to the post of District Judges in the year 2007, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017 & 2019 on the basis of written test and viva voce and that in some of the selections, for the year 2014 & 2017, there were instances that two candidates with identical aggregate marks were included in the final merit list and in such cases, the candidate, older in age was placed above the other candidate, by following the norms as per clause.X of Annexure R2(a) norms, which was approved by the Full Court of the 2 nd respondent-High Court on 10.11.1987. So, it can also be seen from Ext.P-10 Rules that the total marks set apart for written examination is 300 and that for interview/viva voce is only 50 and the minimum qualifying marks for interview has also been instituted as above. So, about 86% of the total marks is set apart for written examination and only 14% of the total marks is set apart for interview. In other words, the interview component is only 1/7 th of the total marks. The specific plea of the 2 nd respondent is that, even after changing the norms of interview as the sole criteria and adopting both written test and interview, the 2 nd respondent has consciously decided not W.A No.1699 of 2021 14 to alter Annexure R2(a) norms, though issued as early as on 10.11.1987. If tie breaking formula is to be altered by giving emphasis on interview, as urged by the appellant, then it amounts to placing disproportionate emphasis on interview, which has only 14% of the total marks. So also, according to the 2nd respondent, it cannot be proper to place emphasis on written examination as well for the above purpose, since the main emphasis given is on the basis of selecting the better among the two candidates and the upper age limit is 45 and many a time in such a scenario the candidate older in age may not get the chance for competing in the next selection process and as one of the prime requirement is also to have very matured, seasoned and experienced personnel, for the post of District Judge, the 2nd respondent has continued to adopt age as the criteria for resolving the tie, subject to the alternate method of length of practice, if both are having the same age, etc.

11. Now, we will have to deal with the prime contention, urged by Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the Apex Court has held in decisions as in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(1981) 4 SCC 159], K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. [(2006) 6 SCC 395], Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi [(2018) 14 SCC 129], that W.A No.1699 of 2021 15 interview is the best method for selection, more particularly, to judicial posts like Munsiff, District Judge, etc. Hence, it is urged that, where the very objective of breaking the tie is to select and appoint the better among the two equally placed candidates, then the tie is to be resolved on the basis of the best method of selection, i.e. interview and therefore, the interview could be the only reasonable criteria and, placing emphasis on age could be quite unreasonable. In other words, to discard the interview, which is held to be the best method, would amount to rank unreasonableness and arbitrariness, appears to be the heart and soul of the contention raised by Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In that regard, he has also urged that Annexure R2(a) norms were issued as early as on 10.11.1987, at the time when interview was the sole method, and that sea change has been brought about after March, 2002, wherein both the written test and the interview are the criteria and therefore, continuing to adopt the old norms, on the basis of age criteria, would be unreasonable, inasmuch as, the said criteria would have been relevant, if interview was the sole method and both candidates had equal marks in the interview and there was no question of placing reliance on the interview marks for breaking the tie, etc. W.A No.1699 of 2021 16

12. In that regard, we would deal with the contentions raised by the appellant on the basis of the aforecited decisions. In Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(1981) 4 SCC 159], the Apex Court had considered the issue as to whether giving weightage to the extent of 25% of the total marks for the interview, for selection to the post of Munsiff, wherein both written examination and interview were the criteria, would be reasonable and rational therein. A reading of the said decision would indicate that the total marks in the written examination was 300 and total marks in the viva examination was 100, thus totalling to 400 and thus the weightage of the interview out of the total marks would be 25%, i.e. 100/400 x 100 = 25%. It was contended that, giving weightage to the extent of 25% of the total marks for interview, would be highly irrational and unreasonable. It is in that context, that the Apex Court dealt with various authoritative opinions, extolling the values of interview and has ultimately concluded in para.7 thereof, that their Lordships are of the considered view that the impugned selection for the post of Munsiff in that case, cannot be struck down, on the ground that 25% weightage has been given to the interview/viva voce. It is true that, the Apex Court has extolled the values of the interview process. However, a reading of para.5 of the said judgment would clearly indicate that the Apex Court has also W.A No.1699 of 2021 17 placed reliance on an authoritative text book "Public Personnel Administration", authored by O.Glenn Stahl, wherein it has been inter alia stated that the general principle is that, resort should never be made to an oral test, if the relevant factors to be tested can be measured at some other point in the examining process. The reason is that, the reliability of the oral test, even under the best of conditions, tends to be lower than that of the well designed written test. The oral test should be confined, then to the evaluation of relevant traits, which cannot be measured in any other way (page.92 of the said book).

13. Therefore, the abovesaid observations made by the Apex Court in Lila Dhar's case, more particularly in para.6, etc., that interview process will be a highly valuable component in the selection criteria, should also be understood, in the context of the issues raised there. Their Lordships of the Apex Court have also prudently quoted the views of an expert for advising against over emphasis in interview. Therefore, the observations of the Apex Court, regarding the high value of the interview process, as laid down in Lila Dhar's case supra, cannot be the basis to contend that interview marks should be the sole criteria for tie resolution and that, otherwise, it would be unreasonable, etc. W.A No.1699 of 2021 18

14. Now we will deal with the decision of the Apex Court in K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. [(2006) 6 SCC 395]. A reading of the said judgment would indicate that, therein the Apex Court has primarily considered the issue as to the stipulation of separate minimum marks for interview for selection to the post of Munsiff, wherein both written examination and interview were the twin criteria. A reading of paras.9, 10, 11, 14 & 15 of the said decision would indicate that Rule.7 concerned therein was silent as to the fixation of cut off marks for the interview. However, in paras.54 & 55, the Apex Court has clearly held that interview is the best method of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position and that while the written examination will testify the candidates' academic knowledge, the oral test alone can bring out and disclose his overall intellectual and personal qualities, like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, etc. After considering various aspects of the matter, the Apex Court has held that, the fixation of minimum qualifying marks for interview in the said selection, was held to be legal and reasonable. The issue posed therein was as to the legality or otherwise of the minimum cut off marks stipulated for the interview process. It is in that context that their Lordships of the Apex Court has held that interview is the best method of asssessing suitability of W.A No.1699 of 2021 19 candidates, for a particular position, etc. The said observations of the Apex Court should be understood in the context of the nature of the issues posed and resolved therein. The said observations of the Apex Court also cannot be an aid to fortify the contentions of the petitioner in the instant case that, adopting age as the criteria of tie breaking and not interview, would be per se unreasonable and arbitrary, as interview is the best method, etc.

15. Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi [(2018) 14 SCC 129] also dealt with the issue of fixation of minimum qualifying marks for interview for selection in the post of District Judges, wherein the twin criteria was on the basis of written examination as well as interview. In para.18 of the decision, the Apex Court has quoted the observations in Siraj's case supra, that interview is the best method to assess the ability of a candidate in a particular position, etc. In that case also, the Apex Court has ultimately upheld the fixation of minimum qualifying marks for interview, for selection by way of direct recruitment for the post of District Judges. The said decision also should be understood in the context of the issues raised and decided therein and cannot be stated to be an authority for the position that, adopting any method, other than interview, for tie breaking could be W.A No.1699 of 2021 20 per se unreasonable or capricious. Hence, we are not in a position to countenance the abovesaid pleas of the appellant, based on the aforecited decisions.

16. Further, it is common ground that there are no specific provisions or norms either in Ext.P-10 rules of recruitment for Kerala Higher Judicial Service or in the general rules as per KS&SSR, for regulating the issue of tie breaking as in the present scenario. Hence, the competent authority, as the 2nd respondent, has the jurisdictional competence to fill up the said gap and silence and lay down explicit norms for tie breaking. Hence, there is no doubt that the 2 nd respondent has the competence to issue norms as per Annexure R2(a)/Ext.P-12. So also, once the competent authority of the 2nd respondent has jurisdictional competence to issue a norm for resolution of breaking the tie, then it is well-known that, ordinarily, the matter relating to the fixation of the norms in that regard would be within the sole province and domain of that authority, subject to the condition that such norms, which are executive in nature, shall not in any manner, infringe any of the statutory provisions of the special rules or the general rules, etc. There is no question of any infringement or violation of the provisions of the special rules, as per Ext.P-10 or the general rules of KS&SSR, in the issuance of W.A No.1699 of 2021 21 Annexure R2(a). It is the specific plea of the petitioner that, though the earlier criteria for selection was solely on the basis of interview and the same has later changed, but even after the change of norms, pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association's case supra, they have consciously decided not to alter the norms as per Annexure R2(a) and to continue the same, for the reasons given by them as above. One such reason is that giving emphasis to interview would be placing a disproportionate priority to interview, which is having only 14% weightage of the total marks. So also, it is stated that since both of them have proved equal merit, based on the aggregate of the written examination and interview, it was felt that placing emphasis on written examination also was not called for. According to the 2 nd respondent, the prime concern was that the candidates in the field of choice would be in the age group of 35 to 45 years and many of the selected candidates would be in their 40's and many a time for tie breaking, the older candidate may not have a chance for competing in the next selection. Further, more crucially they would point out that, one of the prime requirement to be a District Judge, which is the senior most position in the District and Subordinate Judiciary in the State, should be that the candidate should not only be knowledgeable and skilled in law, but should also be sober, W.A No.1699 of 2021 22 matured and well-experienced in human affairs and the life in general. It is on this basis that they had continued to rely on Annexure R3(a) norms, where age is the prime criteria for tie breaking.

17. There is also no dispute that KS&SSR Part-II, Rule 27 (a) & Rule 27 (e) provides for age as the tie breaking formula, where two in-service candidates are otherwise having the same length of service, for determining the seniority. So also, there is no dispute that the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual explicitly provides for age as the prime tie breaking formula, in the selections done by the said service commission. Reliance placed on Ext.P-11 norms of the UPSC, may not seriously advance the case of the appellant, inasmuch as the said norms of Ext.P-11 would give different criteria for different categories of posts and we are also told that therein age is also a criteria for certain posts. So, when the criteria could be varied and diverse, those matters would fall within the exclusive domain and province of the competent authority. A judicial review court's role is only limited to adjudge as to whether the same is vitiated by any rank unreasonableness, arbitrariness or impropriety or, whether it is infringement of any statutory rules or provisions of the Constitution as in Articles 14 & 16, etc. When age has been the tested formula for various selection authorities, it will not be W.A No.1699 of 2021 23 right and proper for a court exercising judicial review function to say that criteria 'a' or criteria 'b' is the best method and adopting any criteria other than that is per se unreasonable or capricious. That would amount to substituting the views of the competent authority, which is impermissible in the basic principles which regulate the limitations on the exercise of the power of judicial review.

18. Further, we are not in a position to discard the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that, giving emphasis for interview would amount to placing disproportionate priority to that component, having only 14% weightage of the total marks. Prima facie, we would also hasten to add that, if the competent authority decides that criteria 'a' or 'b' would be the formula for breaking the tie, there may be serious limitations on the powers of the judicial review court to hold that it is per se unreasonable or arbitrary, etc. If the judicial review court is to accept the plea of the appellant, then it could give rise to various contentions that may come from different sources. For instance, some of the candidates can certainly contend that since the written component is having 86% of the total marks, then emphasis should be given for marks in the written examination for tie resolution. Certain other candidates can contend that the marks secured by them for some of the specific papers in W.A No.1699 of 2021 24 the written examination, should be given emphasis like drafting of judgment, etc., as it has intimate and direct nexus with the task of being an adjudicator. Such variegated claims could come from various sources and therefore, it is all the more the rational, as to why the judicial review court should keep its hands off on such issues, which would primarily come within the matters of selection policy. For all these reasons, we are not in a position to countenance the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that, adopting the criteria of age for tie resolution, is per se unreasonable or arbitrary. In other words, we are in full agreement with the broad reasonings and the considered conclusions of the learned Single Judge, as per the abovesaid impugned verdict in question.

The appeal fails and therefore, the same will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE vgd

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court