MAHINDER KUMAR & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL &ORS

Citation: [2013] 13 S.C.R. 884 · Decided: 12-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 884 
A 
MAHINDER KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH 
REGISTRAR GENERAL &·ORS 
~ 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.289 of 2007) 
j; 
B 
JULY 12, 2013 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, VIKRAMAJIT SEN. JJ.] 
c 
Judiciary - Higher Judicial Service - Madhya Pradesh 
Higher Judicial Service - Selection of entry level District 
Judge - Procedure followed by High Court - Challenged -
Held: Having regard to the power vested in the High Court u/ 
r. 7, as well as para 9 of the advertisetrJent (inviting 
D applications for filling up the posts), in particular para 9 (iv), 
the High Court was fully empowered to prescribe its own fa.ir 
procedure for purpose of evaluation of the marks of the 
candidates, in order to make the ultimate selection - No flaw 
found in the process adopted by the High Court - Para 9(iv) 
E of the advertisement, read along with r. 7, fully empowered the 
High Court to prescribe a procedure from the stage of 
evaluating the answer sheets of the candidates, initially by 
different District Judges and after noticing different standard. 
adopted by different District Judges in the matter of valuation 
j 
F of answer sheets of the candidates, for adopting the 
normalization process in order to streamline the whole 
selection in a fair manner - Also there was no conflict with the 
~ 
Sheffy Commission recommendation, as approved by 
Supreme Court - The procedure followed by 1st respondent 
G High Court was also rational - No material on record in 
--r 
support of the plea that the minimum percentage requirement 
for final selection was increased at the final stage - Procedure 
adopted by the 1st respondent High Court well in order and 
not calling for interference - Madhya Pradesh Uchchtar 
H 
884 
l\t'AHINDER KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. THR. REG. 
885 
GEN. 
,y 
Nyayik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994 - r. 7 
A 
(as amended by Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra (ASADHARAN) 
dated 08.06.2005). 
Selection made by the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh of the third respondent for the post of entry level 
B 
District Judge in the cadre of Madhya Pradesh Higher 
Judicial Service for the year 2006-07 was in issue in the 
instant appeals. 
t 
Dispute arose as to whether by virtue of the powers 
provided in Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchchtar c 
Nyayik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994 
("the 1994 Rules") as amended by Madhya Pradesh 
Rajpatra (ASADHARAN) dated 08.06.2005, read along with 
para 9 (iv) and (vi) of the advertisement inviting 
applications for filling up posts in the Madhya Pradesh 
D 
-ft. 
Higher Judicial Service, the High Court was well justified 
in formulating the procedure in making the selection in 
question. 
The Petitioners/ appellants further contended before 
E 
this Court that under the Rules, there was no provision 
for adopting the procedure of normalization of the marks 
secured by the candidates in the written examination and 
'f 
that, therefore, the said procedure adopted by the High 
Court could not be sustained. It was also contended that 
while making the final selection and appointment of 3rd 
F 
respondent, the prescription of 50% cut-off marks in the 
aggregate marks was again not prescribed either in the 
Rule nor in the advertisement and thus, such a 
prescription evolved by the High Court on its own was 
G 
--r-
without any authority and, therefore, the ultimate 
selection and appointment of 3rd respondent cannot be 
sustained. In support of their stand, the Petitioners/ 
appellants .;eferred to the Shetty Commission Report, 
which was accepted by this Court where the benchmark 
of 120 out of 200 marks, i.e. 60%, was fixed, which in turn 
H 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 13 S.C.R. 
A stated that the said prescription should be followed, 
unless or otherwise the High Court Rules provide for a 
different benchmark and the prescription of a bel)Chniark 
for viva voce. 
· 
.B 
Disposing of all the matters, the Court 
HELD: 
Per Kalifulla, J. 
c 
1. Rule 7 specifically deals with the direct recruitment 
of District Judges as provided for in Rule 3(1) of the 
amended Rules. Therefore, in the absence of any 
challenge to the said Rule 7 as prescribed or any serious 
infirmity pointed out in the said Rule, going by the Rule 
0 
as it stands, it can be stated that the High Court has been 
vested with the required power to evolve its own 
procedure" of selection for direct recruitment and 
promotion in respect of Entr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.