MANOJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertain to the selection process for appointment to the post of District Judges by direct recruitment under the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2010, the petitioners, 12 in numbers, have challenged the constitutional validity of proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "said Rules") to the extent the rules lay down the condition that the candidate must obtain minimum 40% marks at the interview for being included in the select list. The petitioners have also challenged the advertisement dated 28th July, 2008 insofar as the same specified minimum cut off of 40% marks at the interview/viva voce examination. The petitioners have also challenged the select list dated 8th July, 2010 consisting of 14 candidates (respondent Nos.3 to 16) who are selected for appointment to the post of District Judge by nomination i.e. by direct recruitment.

(3.) In Writ Petition No. 4452 of 2010, the sole petitioner has challenged the same select list dated 8th July, 2010 mainly on the ground that the petitioner's answer books at the written test were not correctly and fully assessed. Since the said petitioner had obtained less than 40% marks at the oral interview, the said petition was also heard along with Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2010. The petitions were heard together and since common questions of law were raised, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.