SADANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Advocate, claiming to be a member of the Scheduled Caste was a candidate for appointment to the post of a District Judge. His name was not recommended by the High Court. He however learnt from the newspapers that others have been selected and no Scheduled Caste was included. Naturally he was sorely disappointed and aggrieved, as he was, filed this writ petition challenging the process of selection and the procedure adopted by the High Court in making the recommendation.

(2.) Candidates were interviewed by a selection committee consisting of three senior judges of this Court and on the basis of the interview, the petitioner's name was not included in the panel of names prepared by the committee. The report of the committee was accepted by the Full Court on its administrative side and fourteen names arranged in the order of merit were recommended.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner, through his counsel that a selection based solely on interview, is not an acceptable or reasonable method of ascertaining the suitability of a candidate for the post and on that basis the whole selection has to fail. Alternatively it is stressed that the rules envisage only a selection of a candidate suitable and not of a candidate most suitable to be appointed, and if the High Court has not found that the petitioner is not suitable, he should have been included in the list, when, by virtue of the reservation principles in favour of Scheduled Caste, he was entitled to preference. Both the points raise no difficulty in view of the several decisions of the Supreme Court and the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. We see no merit in either of these contentions and the writ petition has only to be dismissed.