LexABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 6 S.C.R. 530 : 2024 INSC 381 Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. (Writ Petition (C)No. 251 of 2016) 06 May 2024 [Hrishikesh Roy* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the constitutionality of the Rules-Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 and Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 stipulating minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat respectively; whether the prescription of minimum marks for viva voce, in contravention of the law laid down by this Court in All India Judges (2002) which accepted certain recommendations of the Shetty Commission; whether the prescription of minimum marks for viva voce, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; whether the selection process in Bihar vitiated given the moderation of marks and corrective steps; whether non-consultation with the Public Service Commission as required u/Art. 234 of the Constitution for selection to the post of Civil Judge in the State of Gujarat would render the Gujarat Rules, 2005 (as amended in 2011) void. Headnotes† Judiciary – Selection of judicial officers – 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 – Rule 8(5) of Gujarat Rules, 2005 and Clause 11 of the Bihar Rules prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria for appointment, if in contravention of the law laid down by this Court in *All India Judges (2002) case which accepted certain recommendations of the Shetty Commission: Held: Prescription of minimum qualifying marks for interview is permissible – It is not in violation of *All India Judges (2002) case which accepted certain recommendations of the Shetty Commission – Judgment in *All India Judges (2002) case is sub- [2024] 6 S.C.R. 531 Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. silentio on the aspect of minimun marks for interview – It cannot be considered as having authoritatively pronounced on doing away with minimum cut-off marks in the interview segment – In case of inconsistency between the Shetty Commission recommendations and the Rules, primacy should be given to the existing statutory Rules – In the absence of existing Rules, the High Court should follow the directions of this Court – Furthermore, even though the statutory Rules can be supplemented to fill in gaps, the High Court cannot act contrary to the Rules – Prescription of minimum cut- off in the recruitment process was notified for information of the candidates well before the commencement of the selection process under the Patna High Court – By virtue of the decision in *All India Judges (2002), it cannot be said that adequate elbow room was not available to prescribe qualifying marks in the interview segment to ensure the selection of the best possible person – Thus, the prescription of minimum marks in the Rules is not found to be in contravention of the judgment in the *All-India Judges (2002) – Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 – Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005. [Paras 102, 37, 39, 40, 48, 49] Judiciary – Selection of judicial officers – Rule 8(5) of Gujarat Rules, 2005 and Clause 11 of the Bihar Rules prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria for appointment, if violative of Art. 14 and 16: Held: Validity challenge to Clause 11 of the Bihar Rules, 1951 and s. 8(3) of the Gujarat Rules, 2005 (as amended in 2011) prescribing minimum marks for interview are repelled – Recruitment procedure should not only test the candidate’s intellect but also their personality, for appointment to posts in the higher judiciary - In recruitment for judicial vacancies oral interviews play an important role to test the personality and caliber of the aspirant to judicial posts – High scores for the written test by itself do not determine the merit and suitability of an aspirant – An interview can also provide a medium for marginalized candidates to showcase their talents in ways which a written test may not possibly allow – Members of the interview board can provide a level-playing field during the interview process
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.