District Judges Selection | Supreme Court Faults Jharkhand HC For Changing Criteria Midway, Directs To Appoint 7 Candidates

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that after the performance of individual candidates is assessed, then it would be impermissible for the High Court to alter the selection criteria for the appointment of District Judiciary Judges.

The Bench Comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar directed the High Court of Jharkhand to consider the appointment of seven persons qualified to be appointed in a 'District Judge Cadre' Service who were denied appointment due to a "midway change of the Rule" by the High Court.

As per Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 ('the 2001 Rules'), a candidate was required to get at least 30% marks out of the aggregate marks in the viva-voce test for the appointment in the 'District Judge Cadre' Service.

However, a resolution was passed in a Full Court Meeting of the High Court altering the rule of requiring at least 20 marks out of the aggregate 40 in the viva voce test. The said resolution introduces securing 50 percent marks in aggregate (a combination of marks obtained in the main examination and viva-voce) as the qualifying criteria for being recommended to the said posts.

It was contended by the petitioner candidates that it would be impermissible for the High Court to change the selection criteria in the midway after the performance of the candidates had been assessed by the High Court. The petitioner also contends that the fresh cut-off marks released by the High Court is in contravention to the 2001 Rules.

On the contrary, it was submitted on behalf of the High Court administration that Rule 14 of the 2001 Rules permits them to alter the selection criteria after the selection process is concluded and marks are declared.

Finding force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner candidates, the court held that the decision of the High Court to alter the selection criteria is a departure from the Statutory Rules and it was impermissible for the High Court to change the rule midway.

“We find from Rule 18 of the 2001 Rules, the task of setting cut-off marks has been vested in the High Court but this has to be done before the start of the examination. Thus, we are also dealing with a situation in which the High Court administration is seeking to deviate from the Rules guiding the selection process itself. We have considered the High Court's reasoning for such deviation, but such departure from Statutory Rules is impermissible.”

The Court noted that precluding the candidate without there being a finding on such a candidate's unsuitability violates the right to equality under Article 14.

“But if precluding a candidate from appointment violates the recruitment rules without there being a finding on such candidate's unsuitability, such an action would fail the Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary.”

While placing reliance on the constitution bench decision in Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. Vs. High Court of Kerala, the court also rejected the submission on behalf of the High Court administration that Rule 14 permits them to alter the selection criteria after the selection process is concluded and marks are declared. According to the court, it is not a proper exposition of the said provision as the High Court administration cannot take the aid of this Rule to make a blanket decision departing from the selection criteria specified in the 2001 Rules.

“The ratio of this authority is squarely applicable in the facts of this case. Submission on behalf of the High Court administration that Rule 14 permits them to alter the selection criteria after the selection process is concluded and marks are declared is not proper exposition of the said provision. The said Rule, in our opinion, empowers the High Court administration in specific cases to reassess the suitability and eligibility of a candidate in a special situation by calling for additional documents. The High Court administration cannot take aid of this Rule to take a blanket decision for making departure from the selection criteria specified in the 2001 Rules.”

In the Sivanandan CT case, the court invalidated the alteration to the prescribed cut-off marks in the viva-voce exam from 30% to 35% by the Administrative Committee of the High Court by the bona fide reason of ensuring that candidates with requisite personality assume judicial office.

“However laudable that approach of the Administrative Committee may have been, such a change would be required to be brought in by a substantive amendment to the Rules which came in much later as noticed above. This is not a case where the rules or the scheme of the High Court were silent. Where the statutory rules are silent, they can be supplemented in a manner consistent with the object and spirit of the Rules by an administrative order.”, the court observed in Sivanandan CT.

Accordingly, the court allowed the petitions and quashed the resolution passed by the High Court in a Full Court Meeting.

“We, accordingly, allow both the writ petitions by directing the High Court to make recommendations for those candidates who have been successful as per the merit or select list, for filing up the subsisting notified vacancies without applying the Full Court Resolution that requires each candidate to get 50 percent aggregate marks. The part of the Full Court Resolution of the Jharkhand High Court dated 23.03.2023 by which it was decided that only those candidates who have secured at least 50% marks in aggregate shall be qualified for appointment to the post of District Judge is quashed.”

The petitioners were represented by Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. Vinay Navare and Mr. Jayant K. Sud,  senior counsel whereas the High Court of Jharkhand has been represented by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, senior counsel. Mr. Rajiv Shanker Dvivedi, Standing Counsel for the State of Jharkhand has appeared for the State.

Case Details:

SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. VERSUS THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ANR. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 753/2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 109

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment