Judicial Service | 'High Score In Written Exam Alone Doesn't Determine Merit' : Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Mark Criteria For Interview

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 6) upheld the constitutionality of the Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat.

While rejecting the petitioners' contention that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the interview violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra explained the importance of prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the interview.

Emphasizing that an interview unveils the essence of a candidate— their personality, passion, and potential, the Judgment authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy underscored the importance of prescribing minimum qualifying in the interview for the recruitment of judicial officers, by noting that the effort should be to not only test the candidate's intellect but also their personality.

“An interview unveils the essence of a candidate— their personality, passion, and potential. While the written exam measures knowledge, the interview reveals character and capability. Therefore, a person seeking a responsible position particularly as a judicial officer should not be shortlisted only by their performance on paper, but also by their ability to articulate and engage which will demonstrate their suitability for the role of a presiding officer in a court.”, the court said.

It was contended by the petitioners (unsuccessful candidates) that the Rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce doesn't provide a level battle playing field to the candidates who have secured more marks in the written examinations but scored less than the minimum qualifying marks in the interview against those candidates who have secured less in the written examinations but scored more than the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the viva voce.

Finding flaws in the petitioners' argument, the court doubted whether those who had high marks in the written test could by itself be considered in the “meritorious” category.

“This is a debatable issue since the high scores for the written test by itself do not determine the merit and suitability of an aspirant. The performance would also depend on the social, economic, and cultural capital of the candidate. Access to resources such as coaching institutes, quality school education, financial stability, time and flexibility, networking opportunities, mentorship, and access to relevant study materials, are vital factors which also manifestly contribute to the performance in the written test.”, the court added.

Opining that the written test cannot possibly capture the full spectrum of the individual's abilities and potential, the court observed that an interview can also provide a medium for marginalized candidates to showcase their talents in ways that a written test may not possibly allow.

“However, a caveat may be necessary here that candidates hailing from English-speaking urban environments might possess linguistic fluency and familiarity with cultural norms typically associated with interviews and therefore are likely to navigate the viva voce segment with relative ease. Conversely, candidates from marginalized communities may face challenges due to their lack of exposure to urban settings. This is further exacerbated by conscious and unconscious bias on grounds of gender, religion, caste etc.”, the court observed.

Ultimately, the court held that there is a reasonable and direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. the appointment of well-rounded judicial officers by prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce.

“The prescription of minimum cut off is also not perceived to be of such a nature that it reeks of irrationality or was capricious and/or without any adequate determining principle. It does not appear to be disproportionate so as to adversely affect “meritorious” candidates, as has been argued. It is certainly not manifestly arbitrary, or irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”, the court held.

Related report- Supreme Court Upholds P&H HC's 50% Minimum Mark Criteria In Interviews For Promotion As District Judges

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv. Ms. Urvashi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Kumar Kartikay, Adv. Mrs. Archana Preeti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Naveen Soni, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Saxena, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. B C Bhatt, Adv. Mrs. Leelawati Suman, Adv. Mr. N D Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Yatindra Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arunansh Bharti Goswami, Adv. Mr. Brahma Prakash, Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Sncheti, Adv. Ms. Padma Priya, Adv. Mr. Garvit Sharma, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, AOR Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshit Goel, Adv. Mr. Sujay Jain, Adv. Mr. K.Prasad, Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kush Goel, Adv. Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Lalit Kumar, AOR Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, AOR Mrs. Vimal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. B S Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Ms. Rajbala, Adv. Ms. Meetu Goswami, Adv. Mr. Shyamal Kumar, AOR Mr. Krishnavani Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dingra, Adv. Ms. Tanishka Grover, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Verendra Mohan, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Shukla, AOR Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Vimal Dubey, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR

Case Title: ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 350

Click here to read/download the judgment