(1.) The two writ petitions involve common question of law and rest on the same set of facts and, thus, were heard and decided by this common judgment, though the prayer in the two writ petitions is little different, but pertains to the recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in reference to a notification dtd. 12/12/2019.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondents issued an advertisement on 12/12/2019 inviting online applications for the post of District Judge (Entry Level), to fill up the posts notified therein. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the petitioners applied for the post. On being successful in the preliminary examination and the main written examination, the petitioners were called for viva-voce. The petitioners were hopeful to get appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level), but were denied on the ground that the petitioners failed to secure minimum marks in the viva-voce. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed to set aside the prescription of minimum marks to pass viva-voce and for appointment of the petitioners to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a reference to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 [for brevity, "the Rules of 2007"], which Rules govern the selection process, apart from the promotion, etc. The Rules of 2007 provide the method of appointment. It does not provide the minimum marks to be obtained in the viva-voce, rather that is barred under the Rules, yet the respondents not only introduced minimum marks for the viva-voce, but declared the petitioners to be unsuccessful on their failure to secure the minimum marks in the viva-voce. A specific reference to the Rules of 2007 has been given and it has been more especially for the posts to be filled by way of direct recruitment. The required qualification for the post has been indicated and such qualification is possessed by the petitioners.