Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Salam Samarjeet Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The High Court of Manipur At Imphal & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294 of 2015
Decided On : 22-08-2024
(A) Service Law – Appointment – Post of District Judge (Entry Level) in Manipur Judicial Service Grade-I – Executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules where method of final selection by combining cumulative grade value obtained in written and viva voce examinations is specified categorically – Petitioner had no notice about minimum cut-off for viva-voce segment which was introduced just on eve of viva-voce test, well after conclusion of written examination – No notice was given to petitioner regarding imposition of minimum 40% marks for interview – Prescribing minimum marks for viva voce segment may be justified for holistic assessment of a candidate, but in present case such a requirement was introduced only after commencement of recruitment process and in violation of statutory rules – It is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India – Petitioner is entitled to be declared successful in recruitment test – High Court should declare petitioner to be successful by virtue of his scoring 50.6% in aggregate marks in recruitment tests – He be issued appointment order – However, appointed petitioner will be entitled to seniority only from date of his appointment – Petitioner shall not be entitled to any actual monetary benefits for any period prior to his appointment – Appointee should be given notional seniority from year 2015 when interview was conducted – This notional seniority is only for the purpose of superannuation benefits. [Sub-Rule (3) of Schedule ‘B’ of Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005] (Paras 26, 29, 31, 34 and 36)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Estoppel – Principle of estoppel cannot override law – In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it – A candidate may not have locus to assail incurable illegality or derogation of provisions of Constitution, unless he/she participates in selection process – Constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
“I. Can executive instructions in the form of a resolution of the Full Court override statutory rules made under Article 234/309?
II. Can the criteria of cut-off marks be introduced by a Full-Court Resolution without amending rules after the written test is over without informing the candidate?
III. Whether such a course of action amounts to procedural fairness/unfairness?”
Findings of Court:
Opinion of Justice Shiva Kirti Singh is upheld. This Court is not in agreement with opinion rendered by Justice Banumathi.
Result – Reference answered.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents – High Court of Manipur and the Registrar General are represented by Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel.
2. While deciding this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, there was a difference of opinion and having regard to the conflicting judgments rendered by the two learned Judges on 7.10.2016, the matter was directed to be placed before a three-judge Bench. Thereafter, when a similar question of law was found pending before the Constitution Bench i.e., in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others1[Tej Prakash Pathak And Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors. C.A. No. 2634/2013 & batch] (for short “Tej Prakash Pathak”), this case was tagged with the said case. On 12.07.2023, however submission was made before the Constitution Bench by the learned counsel for the parties that reference to the Constitution Bench along the lines in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) is unnecessary and therefore the difference of opinion between the two Judges in the present case should be resolved by a three-Judge Bench.
3. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, this case can be segregated and the Court should, inter alia, consider the following aspects :-
II. Can the criteria of cut-off marks be introduced by a Full-Court Resolution without amending the rules after the written test is over without informing the candidate?
III. Whether such a course of action amounts to procedural fairness/unfairness?”
4. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Constitution Bench on 12.07.2023 to place the present matter for hearing before a three-Judge Bench and that is how we are posted with this case.
RELEVANT FACTS
5. The petitioner, who was an aspirant for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Manipur Judicial Service Grade-I, responded to the advertisement dated 15.05.2013. The petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Caste category and he appeared in the written examination conducted in July 2013 for all the applicants. The High Court of Manipur then issued a Notification on 17.10.2013 declaring that none of the candidates had secured the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination. A grievance was then raised by the petitioner and eventually a corrigendum came to be issued on 07.02.2014 declaring the petitioner to have been successful in the written examination having scored 52.8% marks which satisfied the required benchmark of 50% for the Scheduled Caste category.
6. Just before the interview test, the Full Court of the Manipur High Court on 12.01.2015 decided to fix 40% as the cut-off for the viva-voce examination and the petitioner’s case is that this decision was never intimated to him. The Full Court Resolution reflected that the 40% minimum qualifying marks for passing the interview was fixed by resorting to sub-Rule (3) of Schedule ‘B’ of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (for short “MJS Rules,2005”), which reads as under:-
7. The petitioner who had secured 18.8 marks out of the total 50 marks in the interview segment, was held to be unsuccessful for not having the secured minimum prescribed benchmark of 40%. At this stage, it may be noted that the total marks allocated for the written examination for the three papers were 300 and for the interview segment, a total of 50 marks were prescribed. In his written examination, the petitioner had secured 158.50 marks and 18.8 marks in the interview, his total aggregate score in the written examination plus viva-voce was 177.3 marks, out of the total possible 350 marks. Thus, the percentage of marks scored by the petitioner cumulatively stands at 50.6 percent. It
(1) Appointment on post of District Judge (Entry Level) – Executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules where method of final selection by combining cumulative grade value obtained in writte....
(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 recruit....
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....
The Commission cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection beyond the Rules.
The petitioner, having participated in the selection process without protest and having failed, cannot challenge the selection process or the validity of the proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Service Ru....
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....
The court affirmed the authority of recruitment committees to establish cut-off marks post-examination, provided it serves the objective of selecting qualified candidates.
Public Service Commission - Civil service Examination - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
