(1.) The petitioners in these three Writ Petitions are applicants for the post of District Judges in response to the notification dated 5.9.1995 issued by the respondent (High Court of Karnataka) under Article 233 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules 1983 ('Rules' for short) inviting applications for the purpose of recommending the appointment of 11 members of the Bar, by direct recruitment. The said notification specifies the following minimum qualification for such direct recruitment, in accordance with Article 233 and Rule 2 (Category 2) of the Rules:
(2.) The petitioners claim that they fulfil the eligibility criteria specified in the said notification. They, therefore, contend that they ought to have been called for interview. Their common grievance is that while several other applicants have been called for interview, they have not been called for interview. They contend that once they fulfil the criteria specified in the notification, their applications cannot be ignored or rejected; nor can they be eliminated from the process of selection without being subjected to an interview which is the only method/procedure specified for selection in the notification; and that if other criteria had been applied for eliminating them, such a process would be illegal as such criteria were neither notified nor intimated to the applicants. It is also contended that the authority entrusted with selection cannot prescribe any condition other than those prescribed in Article 233 and the Rules. Hence, they have filed these petitions seeking a direction to the respondent to consider their applications by calling them for interview for selection to the post of District Judges. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4962/1996 has also sought a declaration that non-consideration of his application is arbitrary and illegal.
(3.) The facts and contentions set out in the objections of the respondent are briefly as follows: