SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH versus HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL.& ANR.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 07-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVA KIRTI SINGH · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 771 
SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL.& ANR. 
(Writ Pe~ition (C) No. 294 of2015) 
OCTOBi;:R 07, 2016 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Judiciary .:... Judicial Service - Selection - Change in selection 
criteria in the midst of selection process by adding an additional 
eligibility condition/requirement - Permissibility - Manipur Judicial 
" Services Grade-I - Selection for appointment to the post of District 
Judge (Entry Level) - Respondent-High Court prescribed cut-off/ 
minimum quali.fYing marks for viva-voce (interview) only a few days 
before viva-voce - Petitioner, lone candidate declared unsuccessful 
in viva-voce - Whether such prescription 'of minimum qualifying 
marks for viva-voce during the course of selection process amounted 
to change in the criteria by adding an additional requirement, as 
initially (i.e. before the commencement of selection process) minimum 
quali.fYing marks were prescribed only for written examination and 
not for viva-voce - In view of difference of opinion, matter referred 
to appropriate Bench - Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 -
Service law - Selection. 
Referring the matter to appropriate Bench, the Court 
PERR. BANUMATHI, J.: · 
HELD: 1.1 As seen from the Manipur Judicial Service 
Rules, 2005 - under the head-"EVALUATING PERFORMANCE 
IN COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION FOR JUDICIAL 
SELECTION"; a scheme of converting the numerical marks of 
each question into an l,lppropriate grade, according to the formula 
given in the table and re-converting into grades, is stipulated._ In 
.the table, th~ percentage of marks and Grade prescribed that 
marks below 40% is Grade 'F' which means 'Fail' and its Grade 
Value is '0'. The respondent-High Court maintained that the 
Full Court decision prescribing minimum" 40% marks in the 
interview/viva-voce was taken in order to. introduce consistency 
in the criteria of evaluating perfor~ance of candidates in written 
771 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
772 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
examination and interview/viva-voce. Since the MJS Rules 
already stipuiated that less than 40% marks is Grade 'F' with 
Grade Value '0', it was implicit in the Rules that for ·a 'pass' in -
the examination, 40% minimum marks need to be obtained, 
though of course as per MJS Rules, this is for the cumulative 
Grade Value obtained in the· written examination and the 
interview/viva-voce examination. Keeping in view the MJS Rules, 
in particular, the table converting numerical marks into Grades 
and the final Select List that is prepared by adding cumulative 
grade value obtained in the written examination and the interview/ 
· viva-voce, fixing 40'.'fo for interview/viva-voce out of total marks 
C of59 is in consonance with MJS Rules and it would not amount 
to change in the criteria of selection in the midst of selection · 
process. [Para 14][782-G-H; 783-A-D] 
p 
E 
F 
G 
Ff 
1.2 Further 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 respondent cannot be faulted 
with, in prescribing cut-off marks for the interview/viva-voce. The 
object of conducting interview/viva-voce examination was rightly 
stated in the Rules to assess suitability of the candidate by judging 
the mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and original 
exposition, intellectual depth and th~ like. The Rules further 
stipulated a vigorous and objective grade value exercise for the 
interview/viva-voce examination as well. Keeping in view the 
Rules and having regard to the seniority of the post which is 
. District Judge (Entry Level), the respondent cannot. be faulted 
with for exercising its residuary right reserved in its favour by 
prescribing cut-off marks for the interview. [Para 15][783-D-G] 
Hemani Malhotra Etc. v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 
SCC 11 : 2008 (5) SCR 1066; K. Manjusree v. State 
of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 : 2008 
(2) SCR 1025 - held inapplicable. 
Te} Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & 
Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 540; Ku/winder Pal Singh & Am: 
SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR 
773 
AT IMPHAL & ANR. 
v. State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.