Split verdict by Supreme Court on Manipur district judges’ recruitment

In a case which could have long lasting effects on service law jurisprudence, especially that connected with judicial appointments, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a split verdict..The issue in question was whether the prescription of a particular cut off for viva-voce after the publication calls for selecting district judges amounts to change in the criteria in the midst of the selection process. A Bench of Justices Shiva Kirti Singh and R Banumathi found themselves unable to agree on the issue and delivered separate judgments in the matter..Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared for the petitioner while Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria appeared for the Manipur High Court..By way of background, Salam Samarjeet Singh, an aspirant for the post of district judge in Manipur had cleared the written examination, but was declared unsuccessful in the viva-voce because he failed to get the requisite 40% marks..The recruitment was governed by the Manipur Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2005 (Rules). Though there were no minimum marks prescribed in the Rules and advertisement for the post, the full court of the Manipur High Court later took a decision by a resolution dated January 12, 2015 that “no one shall be declared pass and selected for appointment unless he secures minimum 40% from the interview”..This administrative decision of the High Court was in the Supreme Court..Justice Shiva Kirti Singh observed that the High Court resolution was not communicated to the petitioner, and it was neither a part of the Rules nor of the advertisement. He hence, held that the candidate could challenge the selection process..Placing reliance on the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, which provide that viva-voce shall have no cut-off marks, Justice Singh held that the Rules cannot be altered by a full court resolution to provide for a cut-off for viva-voce..“Not providing any pass mark for the viva voce while so providing for the written examination clearly indicates that the Rules deliberately chose not to prescribe any cut-off for the viva voce. Such omission was thus clearly deliberate to facilitate the intended result….Hence, the Rules could not have been altered by a Resolution taken by the Full Court.”.Relying on the judgments in K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, Justice Singh went on to hold that if a particular mode of selection is prescribed, it has to be adhered to strictly till the end of the recruitment process..“In my view the statutory rules did prescribe a particular mode of selection which did not require any pass mark for the viva-voce examination and it had to be given strict adherence accordingly, at least till the ongoing recruitment process got concluded. .Since the procedure was already prescribed by the Rules, in the present case there was clear impediment in law in the way of the High Court in proceeding to lay down minimum pass mark for the viva voce test….”.Justice Banumathi, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that under clause 1(3) of the Rules, the High Court enjoys a right to resort to procedure other than what is laid down in the Rules..“Clause 1(3), General Instructions of the MJS Rules reserves a right in favour of the High Court which enables the High Court to resort to the procedures, in addition to, what has been specifically laid down in the Rules. It provides that “all necessary steps not provided for in these Rules for recruitment under these Rules shall be decided by the Recruiting Authority”. Having regard to the aforesaid provision, the High Court cannot be faulted with, in prescribing cut-off marks for the interview/viva-voce.”.Stressing on the significance of viva-voce in assessing the merit of a candidate, she held that the decision of the minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce was taken towards ensuring a fair and meritorious appointment, and no mala fide can be attributed for such a decision..“Had the High Court convened the Full Court Meeting after conducting the viva-voce and had then prescribed the minimum qualifying marks, the contention of the petitioner would have been justified. .When the decision of the Full Court was to ensure selection of meritorious candidate, it cannot be said that the decision of the High Court amounted to change in the criteria of selection after the selection process has started.”.Justice Banumathi refused to rely on the judgments in Manjusree and Hemani Malhotra stating the following:.“Since the decision laid down in the Manjusree’s case is doubted and the matter is pending for consideration by a larger Bench, and in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is my view that the ratio laid down in Manjusree and Hemani Malhotra is not applicable to the present case.”.She, thus, proceeded to dismiss the petition..The case will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India TS Thakur to constitute an appropriate Bench to hear the matter.