SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.G. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Civil Appeals Nos. 960 to 968 and 533 to 538 of 1963.
State of Mysore and another (in all the appeals), Appellants v. 1. K. N. Chandrasekhara (in C. A. No. 960 of 1963) 2. K. V. Jayarama (In C. A. No. 961 of 1963) 3. N. S. Asawasthanarayana Rao (In C. A. No. 962 of 1963) 533 4. M.R. Narasimhamurty (In C.A. No. 963 of 1963) 5. M. N. Sheshagiri (In C. A. No. 964 of 1963) 6. M.S. Subarayappa and others (In C.As. Nos. 965 and 536 of 1963) 7. V. K. Kulkarni and others (In C.As. Nos. 966 and 537 of 1963) 8. R. U. Gaulay and others (In C.As. Nos. 967 and 535 of 1963) 9. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan (In C.A. No. 968 of 1963) 10. S. S. Jamboti (In C.A. No. 533 of 1963) 11. T. R. Walveka and others (In C.A. No. 534 of 1963) 12. Mohd. Abdus Saleem and others (In C.A. No. 538 of 1963), Respondents.
With
Writ Petn. No. 62 of 1963.
Krishna Krishna Avadhani, Petitioner
Versus
State of Mysore and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 960 to 968 and 533 to 538 of 1963 with Writ Petn. No. 62 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, for Appellants (In C.As. Nos. 960 to 968 and 533 to 538 of 1963); and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in W.P. No. 62 of 1963); Mr. K. L. Mehta, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1 (In C.As. Nos. 533 to 538, 965 and 966 of 1963); Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 11 and 12 (In C.As. No. 534 of 1963) : Nos. 2 to 8, 10 and 11 (In C.As. Nos. 533, 536 and 538 of 1963) and Nos. 2, 3 and 5 (In C.A. No. 537 of 1963) and Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to 12 (In W.P. No. 62 of 1963); Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan; Advocate, for Petitioners (In W.P. No. 62 of 1963) : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate for Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Respondent No. 5; (In W.P. No. 62 of 1963).
Judgment
SHAH, J. :
The appellants in the two groups of appeals 534 are the State of Mysore and the Mysore Public Service Commission. In the first group of appeals (C.As. Nos. 960 to 968 of 1963) the appellants challenge the order of the High Court of Mysore dated September 4, 1961, quashing a notification dated May 22, 1961, issued by the Public Service Commission announcing the list of candidates declared successful at the competitive examination held in 1961 for recruitment to the cadre of Munsiffs in the Judicial Service of the State. Appeals in the second group (C.As. Nos. to 538 of 1963) are preferred against the order of the High Court dated December 19, 1962 quashing the list of successful candidates at the examination held for recruitment to the cadre of Munsiffs in the State of Mysore published on July 12, 1962 by the Public Service Commission.
2. By Writ Petitions Nos. 61, 62 and 152 of 1963 certain persons who were candidates for promotion to the cadre of Munsiffs prayed for orders quashing the list of successful candidates declared under Rule 9(2) of the Mysore State (Recruitment) Rules, 1958, and for direction appointing the applicants as Munsiffs.
3. Recruitment to the cadre of Munsiffs in the Mysore State Judicial Service is regulated by the Mysore Munsiffs (Recruitment) Rules, 1958 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter called "the recruitment rules") framed by the Governor of Mysore in exercise of powers conferred by Art. 234 and the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. By cl. (1) of R. 3 of the recruitment rules, two methods of recruitment to the cadre are prescribed - by competitive examination and by promotion of persons in service in the High Court and the Courts subordinate to the High Court. Clause (2) of Rule 3 provides that out of every six vacancies, five shall be filled by candidates selected in a competitive examination and the sixth by a candidate selected for promotion. Rule 5 sets out the conditions of eligibility for appointment. The candidate must have reached the prescribed age and must hold a degree in law of any University established by law in India, or possess a qualification recognised as equivalent by the Government. By an amendment made on August 3, 1960, it is provided that the applicant must have practised in Civil or Criminal Courts in India for a period of not less than four years immediately before the last date fixed for submission of the application or must be a stationary Sub-Magistrate, or Magistrate of the First Class, or a Police Prosecutor or Assistant Prosecutor in any of the Criminal Courts in the State, or a ministerial employee of the High Court or of any Court subordinate to the High Court or in the Law Department of the Mysore Government Secretariat the total period of service and the period of practice, if any, together being not less than four years immediately before the last date fixed for submission of the application. A shorter qualifying period is prescribed in respect of candidates belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. R. 6(l) provides that the competitive examination shall be conducted by the Public Service Commission and shall consist of a written examination to test the candidates knowledge of law and languages and a viva voce test. The syllabus for the competitive examination is to be as specified in the schedule to the Rules, and the eligibility of a candidate for appointment as a Munsiff is to be determined by the commission on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and the viva voce test. Clause (4) of R. 6 provides that in the viva voce test the Secretary to Government, Law Department, of any other officer nominated by the Government, shall be associated with the Commission. Rule 9 Sets out the procedure for selection by promotion. By cl.(1) it is prescribed that the candidates for promotion as Munsiffs shall be Selected on grounds of merit and suitability in all respects, from among the candidate
The court affirmed the authority of recruitment committees to establish cut-off marks post-examination, provided it serves the objective of selecting qualified candidates.
The Commission cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection beyond the Rules.
The High Court's revision of eligibility criteria for judicial promotions, requiring separate minimum marks in written and viva voce, is valid, distinguishing between different recruitment methods wh....
(1) Constitutionality of Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test as a part of selection criteria for appointment to District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat respecti....
Rule 12(1)(i) of Rules of 2006 prescribes that no person selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be appointed unless appointing authority is satisfied that he possesses a good moral char....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.