Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has directed the High Court of Manipur to issue an appointment letter to a Scheduled Caste candidate who secured 50.6% aggregate marks in the 2013 recruitment exams for the post of District Judge (Grade I), declaring him successful.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S V N Bhatti held that the executive instructions cannot supersede statutory rules, especially when the final selection process, which involves combining the scores from the written and viva voce exams, is clearly defined.

"In our view, even though prescribing minimum marks for interview may not be manifestly arbitrary, the present case is on the failure to make the selection, in accordance with the unamended Manipur Judicial Services Rules, based on aggregate marks secured by the petitioner in the written examination and the viva-voce test," the bench said. 

The court said that the high court could not have fixed minimum cut-off marks of 40% for interviews by a Full Court resolution in 2015 without amending the Manipur Judicial Services Rules, 2005.

"The decision of the Full Court to depart from the expected exercise of preparing the merit list as per the unamended Rules is clearly violative of the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. It also fails the tests of fairness, consistency, and predictability and hence is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the bench said.

The court said it would be unjustified to deny posting to the sole SC candidate, Salam Samarjeet Singh, who successfully qualified both the written exam and the interview, in accordance with the then-existing rules.

The bench noted no notice was given to the petitioner regarding the imposition of a minimum 40% marks for the interview. It was also noteworthy that despite getting more than 50% marks in the written exam, he was only called for the interview round after he filed a Right to Information (RTI) Application to know his marks. A corrigendum was later issued by the high court in this regard.

"Prescribing minimum marks for viva voce segment may be justified for the holistic assessment of a candidate, but in the present case such a requirement was introduced only after commencement of the recruitment process and in violation of the statutory rules," the bench said.

The high court contended that after participating in the recruitment process, the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn around and challenge the recruitment process.

"We are of the view that it is equally well-settled that the principle of estoppel cannot override the law," the bench said, referring to Krishna Rai v Banaras Hindu University (2022).

On a writ petition filed by the candidate, there was a split judgment on October 7, 2016. The matter was first tagged with a Constitution bench matter in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak And Ors v Rajasthan High Court And Ors (2013). However, in 2023, the matter was detagged and placed before the three-judge bench.

In the split judgment, Justice Banumathi (since retired) had upheld the rejection of the petitioner for failing to secure minimum 40% in the viva voce.

Justice Shiva Kirti Singh (since retired), however, had held that the rejection in viva voce test was wrongful as it violated the statutory mandate which provided for selection based on the cumulative grade value obtained in the written exam and viva voce.

The appellant's counsel said that this was a case of midway change of rules of the game and therefore the opinion expressed by Justice Shiva Kirti Singh should be accepted by the larger bench. 

He said that the present case was covered by the decision of the five-judge Constitution Bench of the top court in Sivanandan C.T. & Ors Vs High Court of Kerala & Ors (2023).

The high court's counsel contended in that case, the Rules were amended after the interview was over but in the present case, the requirement of minimum 40% in the interview segment was decided before the interview commenced. 

He also relied upon Kavita Kamboj Vs HighCourt of P&H (2024) and Abhimeet Sinha Vs High Court of Patna (2024) to buttress his submission that the minimum marks for interview can be prescribed by the high court and is not violative of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and the decision of this Court in All India Judges Assn Vs Union of India (2002).

The court, however, noted the Rules as unamended, did not have the requirement of minimum 40% in the viva-voce segment and such qualifying marks came to be incorporated only by Resolution adopted by the Full Court on January 12, 2015.

It also noted that if the unamended Rules were to be made the basis for evaluation of the performance, the petitioner with his 18.8 marks in the interview out of the maximum permissible 50 marks would have qualified, as his cumulative score (written 158.50 and viva 18.8) would have been 177.3 out of total 350 marks. His percentage in aggregate will then be 50.6% and this would have ensured his success as per the unamended MJS Rules, it said.

"The subsequent amendment to the Rules with effect from March 09, 2016, cannot be applied to the present recruitment process where the petitioner participated. Moreover, the unamended Rules explicitly provided that the cut-off in the written test for SC/ST Candidates would be 50% and the final list would be calculated by combining the cumulative grade value in both written and viva voce," the bench said.

With regard to Kavita Kamboj and Abhimeet Sinha judgments, the bench said that in that matter, the mode of evaluation was provided for in the Rules as this was not a case where the Rules were silent. 

The 2015 Resolution prescribing qualifying marks for viva voce is not a case of supplementing the rules but appears to us as a case where the Rules pertaining to the final selection of candidates, have been substituted, the bench added.

"It is essential to note that while the intention for introducing a minimum cut-off through the High Court Resolution may be bona fide, in the present case, it is not grounded in legality as it cannot override the statutory rules. The minimum marks for interview was prescribed through a High Court Resolution without amending the rules," the bench said.

The court also said that unamended MJS Rules, 2005 generated a legitimate expectation in the candidate that the merit list would be drawn based on the aggregate of the total marks secured both in the written examination and the viva voce examination. 

Moreover, the petitioner had no notice about the minimum cut-off for the viva-voce segment which was introduced just on the eve of the viva-voce test, well after the conclusion of the written examination. If the candidate had been informed in advance, he could have prepared accordingly, ensuring a fair and predictable process, it added.

In its judgment, the bench agreed with the view of Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.

Case Title: Salam Samarjeet Singh Vs The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr