2024 Supreme(SC) 112

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The High Court of Jharkhand and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 753, 921 of 2023
Decided On : 01-02-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment of District Judges – “No change in the rule midway” dictum has become an integral part of service jurisprudence – If precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of recruitment rules without there being a finding on such candidate’s unsuitability, such an action would fail Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary.
(2) Appointment of District Judges – Expression “aggregate” means combination of two or more processes and in the event procedure for arriving at aggregate has been laid down in applicable Rules, a separate criteria cannot be carved out to enable change in the manner of making aggregate marks.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Appointment of District Judges – Legality of selection process – [Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 – Rules 14, 18, 21 and 22; Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017 – Paragraph 12] – “No change in the rule midway” dictum has become an integral part of service jurisprudence – As per Rule 18 of 2001 Rules, task of setting cut-off marks has been vested in High Court but this has to be done before start of examination – High Court administration is seeking to deviate from Rules guiding selection process itself but such departure from Statutory Rules is impermissible – A candidate being on select list acquired no vested legal right for being appointed to post in question – But if precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of recruitment rules without there being a finding on such candidate’s unsuitability, such an action would fail Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary – Better candidates ought to be found – That is different from a candidate excluded from appointment process being found to be unsuitable. (Paras 16 and 20)

(B) Service Law – Appointment of District Judges – Legality of selection process – [Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 – Rules 14, 18, 21 and 22; Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017 – Paragraph 12] – Expression “aggregate” means combination of two or more processes and in the event procedure for arriving at aggregate has been laid down in applicable Rules, a separate criteria cannot be carved out to enable change in the manner of making aggregate marks – If High Court is permitted to alter selection criteria after performance of individual candidates is assessed, that would constitute alteration of laid down Rules – Rule 14 empowers High Court administration in specific cases to reassess suitability and eligibility of a candidate in a special situation by calling for additional documents – High Court administration cannot take aid of this Rule to take a blanket decision for making departure from selection criteria specified in 2001 Rules – Content of Rule 14 has tenor of a verification process of an individual candidate in assessing suitability or eligibility – High Court directed to make recommendation for those candidates who have been successful as per merit or select list, for filing up subsisting notified vacancies without applying Full Court Resolution that requires each candidate to get 50 per cent aggregate marks. (Paras 22, 23, 24 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Point in issue is legality of selection process of District Judge Cadre in the State of Jharkhand initiated in the year 2022. An advertisement bearing No. 01/2022 was published on 24th March, 2022, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the said posts. Vacancies specified in the advertisement itself were twenty-two. Appointment procedure to the said posts is guided by Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001. Petitioners’ main case rests on two planks. First one is that the decision of the Full Court on the administrative side goes contrary to the Recruitment Rules, Regulations and Terms contained in the advertisement. Second plank of submissions advanced by the petitioners is that in any event, after performance of each of the candidate is known and the marks obtained by them in the two forms of the examination are disclosed, it was impermissible for High Court Administration to introduce fresh cut-off marks.

Findings of Court:

Part of Full Court Resolution of 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 post of District Judge is quashed.

Result : Writ Petitions allowed.