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

The Supreme Court On Tuesday (February 13) upheld a criteria set by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that judicial officers seeking promotion to the post of District Judges should secure a minimum of 50% marks in the interviews. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed a batch of special leave petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates and the State of Haryana challenging the direction issued by the High Court to the State to promote 13 judicial officers, who met the criteria, as District Judges.

The issue here is related to the 65% quota for selection through merit-cum-seniority under the promotion procedure outlined by Rule 8 of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007.

The High Court's action was challenged primarily on the ground that the Rules do not prescribe minimum cut-off criteria for viva voce. The State of Haryana objected to the direction on the ground that the High Court did not consult the State Government as per the mandate of Article 233 before framing the criteria.

The Supreme Court observed that since the Rules are silent on the aspect of a minimum cut-off for viva voce, the High Court was justified in prescribing such a condition through a Full Court resolution.

The Supreme Court also distinguished its judgment in Sivanandan CT and others v. High Court of Kerala and others on the ground that in that case, the rules of the Kerala High Court had a clear prescription regarding the cut-off, from which a deviation was made. However, in this case, the Rules are entirely silent regarding prescribing minimum eligibility to clear the test and viva. If the Rules were clear on this aspect, the matter would have been entirely different. Given the silence of the rules, it was open to the High Court on the administrative side to provide the modalities of marking marks, the Court added.

Supreme Court emphasises the importance of interview

The petitioners had also questioned the need for an interview, pointing out that the candidates are in-service judicial officers aspiring for promotion as opposed to fresh candidates. Therefore, the Annual Confidential Reports of the officers would shed sufficient light on their competence and the interview test was unwarranted, they argued.

Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court observed :

"High Court is correct in coming to the conclusion that apart from having substantive knowledge of the law, the in-service judicial officer must possess communication and other skills which would emerge in the course of an interview.

We must be mindful of the fact that the interview in such cases is not being held at the threshold of the service. Quite to the contrary, the interview is being held to fill up a senior position in the district judiciary, that of an additional district and sessions judge. Such officers, based on their prior experience must be expected to demonstrate a proficiency in judicial work born from their long years in service.

The purpose of an interview is to assess officer in terms of their ability to perform the role of additional and district sessions judge and thus High Court was correct to introduce separate cut-offs for the written test and the interview."

A candidate should not just show knowledge in the suitability test but must also demonstrate both their practical knowledge and the application of the substantive law in the course of the interview held for the purpose, observed CJI DY Chandrachud in the judgment. The High Court is at liberty to conclude that in-service officers must possess the required personality and hence be interviewed.  

State in error

The Court also rejected the argument raised by the State Government relying on Article 233. Since the Rules were silent, any issue between the State and the High Court should have been ironed out through a consultative process, the Court opined.

"We have come to the conclusion that the State was in error in finding fault with the High Court," the Court stated.

Senior Advocates Mr PS Patwalia, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Shyam Divan appeared for the aggrieved petitioners. The State Government was represented by Solicitor General (SG) Mr Tushar Mehta, while the Punjab & Haryana High Court was represented by Senior Advocate Mr Nidhesh Gupta.

Background

In terms of Rule 8, the High Court is required to hold a written objective test comprising 75 marks and viva of 25 marks to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge and efficiency of the candidates, and also take into consideration the ACR of the preceding 5 years of each of the officer.