The court rejected the petition, asserting that judicial service recruitment requires a nuanced approach due to the unique nature of judicial duties. “Recruitment to judicial service is not akin to recruitment for any civil post under the State or Union of India,” the Bench observed. It further emphasized that attributes like integrity, aptitude, and character play a critical role in determining a candidate’s suitability for a judicial position.
“Emphasis upon viva voce to a little more extent than other recruitments is necessary to ensure that persons of very high level of integrity, aptitude, character, and merit adorn the judicial offices. Whether a candidate has an aptitude, inclination, and character to become a judge cannot alone be determined by a written test. Therefore, a little higher percentage of marks for viva voce than 15 per cent in recruitment to judicial offices is understandable,” the court explained.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the *Lila Dhar versus State of Rajasthan and others* case, highlighting the crucial role of viva voce in evaluating a candidate’s suitability beyond academic knowledge. The court also noted that the petitioner entered the recruitment process “with open eyes,” fully aware of the passing marks requirement of a 50% aggregate, and therefore could not claim surprise or allege that the rules were altered mid-process.
Refusing to interfere with the recruitment process, the Bench remarked that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot extend to processes conducted transparently, fairly, and reasonably, with no allegations of malafide intent. The judgment reiterates the importance of balancing written exams and viva voce in judicial recruitment to ensure candidates with the highest levels of integrity and aptitude are selected for judicial roles.