LexSALAM SAMARJEET SINGH versus THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 885 : 2024 INSC 647 Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr (Writ Petition (Civil) No.294/2015) 22 August 2024 [Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Can the executive instructions in form of a resolution of the Full Court (High Court) by prescribing minimum marks for interview, override statutory rules made under Article 234/309; whether the High Court’s decision frustrates the legitimate expectation of the petitioner. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Just before the interview test, the Full Court of the High Court on 12.01.2015 decided to fix 40% as the cut-off for the viva-voce examination and the petitioner’s case is that this decision was never intimated to him – The petitioner who had secured 18.8 marks out of the total 50 marks in the interview segment, was held to be unsuccessful for not having the secured minimum prescribed benchmark of 40% – Correctness: Held: The unamended Schedule ‘B’ of MJS Rules 2005 prescribes the mode of evaluating and grading the performance in the written and viva-voce examination – Those who secured below 40% are classified in the ‘F’ category with zero grade value – However, Sub clause (iv) clearly indicates that the final selection list will be readied by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written examination and viva-voce examination – The MJS Rules 2005 came to be amended on 09.03.2016, after conclusion of the present recruitment process whereby, 40% minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce segment were prescribed – This would also indicate that the Rules as unamended, did not have the requirement of minimum 40% in the viva-voce segment and such qualifying marks came to be incorporated only vide Resolution adopted by the Full Court on 12.01.2015 – If the evaluation and selection of the petitioner would have been carried out on the basis of the unamended Rules, the petitioner having cumulatively secured 50.65% by combining both the written and the interview segment – The petitioner cannot be 886 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports placed in the category of failed candidates – In application of the MJS Rules 2005, it is quite certain that there was no cut-off marks or pass marks prescribed for the viva-voce examination in the present process when the recruitment advertisement was published – The subsequent amendment to the Rules with effect from 09.03.2016, cannot be applied to the present recruitment process where the petitioner participated – Moreover, the unamended Rules explicitly provided that the cut-off in the written test for SC/ST Candidates would be 50% – Even though prescribing minimum marks for interview may not be manifestly arbitrary, the present case is on the failure to make the selection, in accordance with the unamended MJS Rules, based on aggregate marks secured by the petitioner in the written examination and the viva-voce test – It is essential to note that while the intention for introducing a minimum cut-off through the High Court Resolution may be bona fide, in the present case, it is not grounded in legality as it cannot override the statutory rules – The minimum marks for interview was prescribed through a High Court Resolution without amending the rules – Therefore, the executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules where the method of final selection by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written and the viva voce examinations is specified categorically – In the present case, no notice was given to the petitioner regarding the imposition of minimum 40% marks for interview – Prescribing minimum marks for viva voce segment may be justified for the holistic assessment of a candidate, but in the present case such a requirement was introduced only after commencement of the recruitment process and in violation of the statutory rules – The decision of the Full Court to depart from the expected exercise of preparing the merit list as per the unamended Rules is clearly violative of the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners – It also fails the tests of fairness, consistency, and predictability and hence is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 18, 25, 26, 31] Case Law Cited Sivanandan C.T. & Ors v. High Court of Kerala & Ors [2017] 13 SCR 226 – followed. Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.