WP(C) 4782/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A K GOEL HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A K GOSWAMI Goel,J. Heard Dr B Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr SS Dey, lea rned Standing Counsel for the High Court. This petition seeks direction to cancel selection process in the Prelimi nary(Written) Examination of Assam Judicial Service Grade III, 2011 and to condu ct a fresh examination. Prayer has also been made that the Main Examination sche duled to be held on 24.9.2011, 25.9.2011 and 26.9.2011 may not be allowed to be held. The case set out in the petition is that by the advertisement dated 18th January, 2011, 57(fifty seven) posts of Judicial Officers in Assam Judicial Ser vice Grade-III were advertised. Preliminary Examination was conducted by the Hig h Court on 24.7.2011, in which 184 candidates were declared successful, out of a bout 4600 candidates. The said number was far below the number of candidates who could have been given a chance to appear in Main Examination by applying the ra tio of vacancies to the candidates to be allowed to appear in the Main Examinati on that is 1:10. In question papers, there are multiple errors, and the answer-s heets were not fit enough to be scrutinised by the computer. Ten questions perta in to test of proficiency of candidates in official languages of Assam. All the ten questions related to Assamese language, whereas in the State of Assam, Benga li and Bodo are also official languages. The writ petition has been filed on 12.9.2011 and on mention being made on 19.9.2011, the same was listed for hearing on 21.9.2011, on which date learne d Standing Counsel for the High Court put in appearance and sought time till tod ay to take instructions. Learned standing counsel for the High Court, submits that after the publ ication of the advertisement and before conducting the Preliminary Examination o n 24.7.2011, the Committee for Recruitment, in its meeting held on 23.5.2011, to ok a decision that the candidates securing 60 or more marks in Preliminary Exami nation would be eligible to appear in the Written Examination in the ratio of 1: 10(for 1 post, 10 candidates). This decision was by way of a short-listing crite rion. It has further been pointed out that in the Preliminary Examination, OMR a nswer Sheets were given, which were fit for being checked through the computer, and all the Sheets were duly checked through the computer and no difficulty was found. There were minor typographical errors in question numbers 10, 20, 27, 28, 34, 36, 46, 49, 52, 56, 61, 66, 72, 75, 81 and 83; but before start of examinat ion the errors were duly explained to all the candidates and thus, no prejudice was caused to any candidate on account of such error. It has been further submit ted that in certain areas in Assam, Bengali and Bodo are also official languages but Assamese is official language throughout the State of Assam. Knowledge of t he Assamese language is necessary for the Assam Judicial Service. Questions for consideration are : (i) Whether laying down requirement of securing 60% marks in preliminary examination as a part of short-listing criter ia can be upheld, when the Rule prescribes maintenance of 1:10 ratio in the numb er of posts and number of candidates to be allowed to appear in the Main Examina tion; (ii) Whether the result of Preliminary Examination is vitiated on account of OMR Sheets not allegedly meeting the requisite specification or on account of clerical errors in some of the questions; or on account of providing 10 questio ns for Assamese language in Preliminary Examination, so as to call for cancellat ion of main examination which is yet to be held. In our view, the questions have to be answered against the petitioners. Limiting of main examination only to those candidates who secure more than 60% m arks in preliminary examination is not in any manner illegal, calling for interf erence by this Court. Having regard to the importance of judicial service, appro priate standard can be prescribed. Under the statutory rules, 60% marks are requ ired to be secured in the Main Examination. If a decision was taken to limit opp ortunity to appear in Main Examination also to those candidates who secured more than 60% marks in the Preliminary Examination, the same cannot be held to be ar bitrary. Merely because the Rules provide for ratio of 1:10 in the number of pos ts and the number of candidates who could be allowed to appear in the Main Exami nation did not mean that irrespective of performance in Preliminary Examination, such ratio was to be maintained. Such ratio can be subject to prescribed standa rd by way of short-listing criteria. It pre-supposes that such number of candida tes are available with the requisite merit. It cannot be supposed that the ratio has to be maintained even by lowering the merit, as contended. We do not find any reason to hold that OMR Sheets did not meet the compu ter specifications. All the sheets have been duly checked through computer and n o difficulty has been found. This plea cannot, thus, be accepted. Coming to the typing errors in the questions, we have been informed that the errors were been duly explained to the candidates before commencement of th e Preliminary Examination. This could not be contradicted by the petitioners. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that thi s was not the main ground of challenge to the result of the Preliminary Examinat ion. In view of this statement, Preliminary Examination cannot be held to be vit iated on that ground. As regards 10 questions in question paper for the Preliminary Examination being devoted only to Assamese language, the same cannot be held to be illegal. The ex amining/selecting body can test a candidate in relation to the language which is main language of the State and which is necessary in the discharge of judicial functions in the State by the candidates appointed to the Assam Judicial Service . Rules laying down the syllabus provide for test of proficiency of candidates i n the official language(s) in the State of Assam. Bengali and Bodo also being of ficial languages in some areas cannot be bar to proficiency being tested with re ference to the Assamese language. Admittedly, Assamese is one of official langua ges throughout the State. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the petition. The writ pet ition is dismissed.