Sivanandan C. T. vs High Court of Kerala

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1138

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Sivanandan C.T. and Others – Petitioners
Versus
High Court of Kerala and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 229, 232, 379, 618 of 2017
Decided On : 12-07-2023

Headnote:
legitimate expectation - District Judges Selection - 1961 Rules - The High Court's decision to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is contrary to Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules. The decision frustrates the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute regarding the selection process for District Judges in the State of Kerala. The High Court's decision to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination led to petitions being filed before the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the High Court's decision to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination was contrary to the 1961 Rules and frustrated the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. However, due to the lapse of more than six years and the candidates who had been selected already serving as District Judges, the Court held that it would be contrary to public interest to unseat them at this stage.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court's decision to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination was lawful and whether it frustrated the legitimate expectation of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the High Court's decision was contrary to the 1961 Rules and frustrated the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners, making it arbitrary and violative of Article 14. However, due to the candidates' extensive service as District Judges, the Court found it contrary to public interest to unseat them at this stage.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the petitions, holding that it would be contrary to public interest to direct the induction of the petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service after the lapse of more than six years. The petitions were accordingly disposed of, and pending applications were also disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.

Table of Contents
(A)	Background
(B)	Submissions
(C)	Analysis
(i)	The decision of the High Court was ultra-vires the 1961 Rules
(ii)	Legitimate Expectation
(a)	Doctrine of legitimate expectation under common law
(b)	Doctrine of legitimate expectation under Indian law
(c)	Substantive Legitimate Expectation
(d)	Consistency and predictability as aspects of non-arbitrariness
(D)	Application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation
(i)	What has the High Court committed itself to?
(ii)	Whether the High Court has acted unlawfully in relation to its commitment?
(iii)	What should this Court do?
(E)	Conclusions

(A) Background

1. On 14 November 2017, a Bench of two Judges of this Court referred a batch of four petitions, which invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, to the Constitution Bench in Sivanandan C.T. vs. High Court of Kerala, (2018) 1 SCC 239. Eleven petitioners are before this Court, all of whom are candidates aspiring to be selected as District Judges in the Higher Judicial Service of the State of Kerala.

2. In the State of Kerala, the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules 1961¹ [“1961 Rules”] came into force on 11 July 1961. These Rules have been framed under Articles 233 and 309 of the Constitution. The 1961 Rules provide for the constitution of the Higher Judicial Service into three categories:

(ii) Selection Grade District and Sessions Judge.

(iii) District and Sessions Judge, including Additional District Judge.

3. The dispute in the present batch of cases pertains to the third category noted above. Rule 2(c) provides for the method of appointment of the third category. Rule 2(c)(iii) stipulates that 25% of the posts in the category shall be filled by direct recruitment from the Bar “on the basis of aggregate marks/grade obtained in a competitive examination and viva-voce conducted by the High Court.”

4. By a notification dated 13 December 2012, the High Court of Kerala prescribed the scheme for the Kerala Higher Judicial Service Examination. The scheme as notified by the High Court contained the following stipulations pertaining to the examination:

(ii) While separate minimum marks were not prescribed for each paper, general category candidates who secure at least 50% in the aggregate and SC/ST candidates who secure at least 40% in the aggregate for both the papers together would be qualified for viva-voce test.

(iii) The viva-voce test would be conducted “in a thorough and scientific manner” for a period ranging between 25 to 30 minutes for each candidate.

(iv) There shall be no cut off marks for the viva-voce.

(v) The merit list would be prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained both in the written examination and the viva-voce.

5. On 30 September 2015, a notification was issued by the High Court of Kerala by which applications were invited from qualified candidates for appointment as District and Sessions Judges in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services by direct recruitment from the Bar. Paragraph 5 of the notification provides for the mode of selection. Paragraph 5 stipulates that the selection would be on the basis of a competitive examination consisting of a written examination and a viva-voce. The total marks assigned for the written examination were 300 comprising of two papers, each carrying maximum of 150 marks. General candidates and candidates belonging to the OBC category who secure 50% and the SC/ST candidates who secure 40% aggregate minimum marks for both the writte