Supreme Court upholds minimum marks criteria in interview for appointment to Bihar and Gujarat district judiciary

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the minimum marks requirement in interviews/ viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat [Abhimeet Sinha and Ors. v High Court of Judicature at Patna and Ors.].A Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the policy is not violative of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.."Interviews are to produce better judicial candidates and do not violate Article 14; policies like moderation (of marks) should ideally be part of the rules," the Court said while reading from the operative part of the judgment this morning..The recruitment pertained to the selection of judicial officers of different ranks and respective selection cycles i.e. District Judge (Entry Level) by direct recruitment from the Bar (2015 Advertisement) for the State of Bihar and the post of Civil Judge (2019 and 2022 Advertisement) for the State of Gujarat.The judgment was passed on a plea filed by 46 unsuccessful candidates of the District Judges examination held in the State in 2015. The plea highlighted that against 99 vacancies, only 9 candidates were declared successful and selected. It was submitted that after the written examination, 69 candidates were shortlisted for the interview and that out of them, 60 were given low marks despite having performed well in the written exam. Accordingly, they sought a direction to Patna High Court to consider appointing them after relaxing the minimum marks prescribed for the interview.The plea also sought striking down of a provision of the Bihar Superior Judicial (Amendment) Rules 2013 on the ground that it was contrary to the recommendation of Justice KJ Shetty Commission.As far as Gujarat was concerned, the petitioners challenged the vires of the amended Rule 8(3) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (Gujarat Rules), which was amended by notification dated June 23, 2011 as well as the corresponding clauses of the advertisement of the respective recruitment years. The ancillary prayer was to prepare a fresh select list based on the aggregate marks of written examination and interview, irrespective of the cut-off marks prescribed..The Supreme Court, however, held that mere apprehension of bias cannot be a ground to strike down something.It also said that written tests cannot fully capture the aptitude of candidates."The written test cannot possibly capture the full spectrum of the individual's abilities and potential. An interview can also provide a medium for marginalized candidates to showcase their talents in ways which a written test may not possibly allow .... can we ignore the intrinsic ability of the members of the interview panel constituted by the High Court judges to separate the grain from the chaff," the Court said. The top court conceded that those from English-speaking urban environments with linguistic fluency and familiarity with cultural norms may have it easier at the interview stage in comparison to those from marginalized communities.All the same, it observed that the interview board members would be able to provide a level playing filed to all candidates."This Court would like to believe that the members of the interview board can provide a level-playing field during the interview process for those who come from a disadvantaged background, to assess the true merit and potential of the interviewees. The solution lies in the interviewing members being aware and sensitive to alleviate bias in the process of Interview."Further, the Court opined that for recruitment of judicial officers, both intellect and personality need to be assessed so as to gauge their ability to adjudicate disputes."An interview unveils the essence of a candidate— their personality, passion, and potential. While the written exam measures knowledge, the interview reveals character and capability. Therefore, a person seeking a responsible position particularly as a judicial officer should not be shortlisted only by their performance on paper, but also by their ability to articulate and engage which will demonstrate their suitability for the role of a presiding officer in a court.".Senior Advocates Ajit Kumar Sinha, Yatinder Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik with Advocates Shraddha Deshmukh, Pawanshree Agrawal and Rishabh Sancheti appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Gautam Narayan appeared for the Patna High Court while advocate Purvish Jitendra Malkan represented the Gujarat High Court..[Read Judgment]