1. Petitioner failed judicial recruitment but subsequently qualified and joined service in a later batch. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Avinash Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Patna through Its Registrar General - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 165 of 2017
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Important Points
The absence of a provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets and the subsequent joining of service by the petitioner influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Subject
Civil Law - Employment Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Re-evaluation - District Judges - The court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner who did not qualify in the selection process for district judges through direct recruitment in 2015-2016, as there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets at the relevant time. The petitioner joined service in the subsequent batch of 2017, and the court found no case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner did not qualify in the selection process for district judges through direct recruitment in 2015-2016 but joined service in the subsequent batch of 2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition as there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets at the relevant time and found no case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32.
Issues: Qualification for district judges, re-evaluation of answer sheets, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets at the relevant time and the petitioner joining service in a subsequent batch led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv., Ms. Padma Priya, Adv., Mr. Anchit Bhandari, Adv., Mr. Suyash Jain, Adv., Mr. Chirag Kalani, Adv., Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh , AOR, Ms. Neelam Rathore, Adv., Ms. Sandhya Kohli, Adv., Mr. Lovekesh Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Shubham Seth, Adv., Mr. Anuj Panwar, Adv., Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR, Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anand Kumar, Adv., Ms. Jaya Kiran, Adv., Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv., Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Pritish Roy, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv., Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv., Mr. Yogendra Kumar Verma, Adv., Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AOR, Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv., Mr. Naik H.k., Adv., Mr. Ajay Amritraj, Adv., Mr. Chetan Garg, Adv., Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR, Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Mohan Kumar, AOR, Mr. Anurag Katarki, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv., Ms. Neetu Singh, Adv., Ms. Asia Beg, Adv., Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Adv., Mrs. Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha, Adv., Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv., Ms. Laksha Bhavnani, Adv., Mr. Adhiraj Wadhera, Adv., Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR, Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv., Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv., Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv., Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv., Ms. Aishwarya Hariharan, Adv., Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv., Mr. Akshat Gogna, Adv., Ms. Isha Ghai, Adv., For M/S. Kmnp Law, Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv., Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR, Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv., Mr. P.V. Dinesh, AOR, Ms. Oommen Anna A, Adv., Ms. Urvashi Chauhan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR, Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv., Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR, Mr. James P. Thomas, Adv., Mr. Ravi Sagar, Adv., Mr. Remish Lakra, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR, Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv., Mr. Kartik Kaushal, Adv., Mr. Adhitya Koshy Roy, Adv., Ms. Sidhi Gupta, Adv., Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR, Mr. Rashika Swarup, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR, Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR, Mr. Lalit Kumar, AOR, Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR.
For the Appellant : Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv., Ms. Padma Priya, Adv., Mr. Anchit Bhandari, Adv., Mr. Suyash Jain, Adv., Mr. Chirag Kalani, Adv., Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh , AOR, Ms. Neelam Rathore, Adv., Ms. Sandhya Kohli, Adv., Mr. Lovekesh Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Shubham Seth, Adv., Mr. Anuj Panwar, Adv., Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR, Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anand Kumar, Adv., Ms. Jaya Kiran, Adv., Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv., Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Pritish Roy, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv., Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv., Mr. Yogendra Kumar Verma, Adv., Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AOR, Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv., Mr. Naik H.k., Adv., Mr. Ajay Amritraj, Adv., Mr. Chetan Garg, Adv., Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR, Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Mohan Kumar, AOR, Mr. Anurag Katarki, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv., Ms. Neetu Singh, Adv., Ms. Asia Beg, Adv., Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Adv., Mrs. Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha, Adv., Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv., Ms. Laksha Bhavnani, Adv., Mr. Adhiraj Wadhera, Adv., Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR, Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv., Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv., Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv., Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv., Ms. Aishwarya Hariharan, Adv., Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv., Mr. Akshat Gogna, Adv., Ms. Isha Ghai, Adv., For M/S. Kmnp Law, Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv., Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR, Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv., Mr. P.V. Dinesh, AOR, Ms. Oommen Anna A, Adv., Ms. Urvashi Chauhan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR, Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv., Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR, Mr. James P. Thomas, Adv., Mr. Ravi Sagar, Adv., Mr. Remish Lakra, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR, Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv., Mr. Kartik Kaushal, Adv., Mr. Adhitya Koshy Roy, Adv., Ms. Sidhi Gupta, Adv., Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR, Mr. Rashika Swarup, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR, Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR, Mr. Lalit Kumar, AOR, Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR.
Table of Contents
2. The court noted the absence of re-evaluation provisions and the petitioner's subsequent entry into service. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Jurisdiction under Article 32 is not maintainable when the petitioner has already entered service through a subsequent recruitment process. (Para 3 )
4. Writ Petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Does subsequent entry into service affect the maintainability of a writ petition challenging a previous recruitment failure?
Yes, if the petitioner has joined service after being successful in a subsequent batch, no case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 is made out. (Para 3 )
6. Can a candidate seek re-evaluation of answer sheets if no such provision exists in the recruitment rules?
The court observed that where no provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets exists at the relevant time, such a claim cannot be sustained. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
1. The petitioner did not qualify in the selection process for district judges through direct recruitment in 2015-2016. However, it is common ground that he has since qualified and joined service in the subsequent batch of 2017.
2. There was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets at the relevant time.
3. In view of the fact that the petitioner has joined service after being successful in a subsequent batch, no case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 is made out.
4. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
5. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
