SIVANANDAN C T AND OTHERS versus HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 12-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 674 : 2023 INSC 709
674
CASE DETAILS
SIVANANDAN C T AND OTHERS
v.
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 229 of 2017)
JULY 12, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, 
PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Kerala State Higher 
Judicial Services Special Rules 1961 stipulates that 25% of the posts in the 
category shall be fi lled by direct recruitment from the Bar “on the basis of 
aggregate marks/grade obtained in a competitive examination and viva-voce 
conducted by the High Court”. The scheme of examination specifi cally 
stipulated that there shall be no cut off  marks for the viva voce. Whether 
the decision of the High Court to prescribe a cut-off  for the viva-voce 
examination was arbitrary.
Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules 1961 – rule 2(c)
(iii) – The scheme which was notifi ed by the High Court on 13.12.2012 
clearly specifi ed that there would be no cut off  marks in respect of the 
viva-voce – However, the decision of the High Court to prescribe a cut-
off  for the viva-voce examination was taken much after the viva-voce 
tests were conducted – Propriety:
Held: The Administrative Committee of the High Court decided to 
impose a cut off  for the viva-voce examination actuated by the bona fi de 
reason of ensuring that candidates with requisite personality assume judicial 
offi  ce – Such a change would be required to be brought in by a substantive 
amendment to the Rules which came in much later – This is not a case 
where the rules or the scheme of the High Court were silent – Where the 
statutory rules are silent, they can be supplemented in a manner consistent 
675
with the object and spirit of the Rules by an administrative order – In the 
present case, the statutory rules expressly provided that the select list would 
be drawn up on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained in the written 
examination and the viva-voce – This was further elaborated in the scheme 
of examination which prescribed that there would be no cut off  marks for 
the viva-voce – This position is also refl ected in the notifi cation of the High 
Court dated 30.09.2015 – In this backdrop, the decision of the High Court 
suff ered from its being ultra vires the 1961 Rules besides being manifestly 
arbitrary. [Paras 15 and 16]
Doctrines – Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Claim under:
Held: An individual who claims a benefi t or entitlement based on the 
doctrine of legitimate expectation has to establish: (i) the legitimacy of the 
expectation; and (ii) that the denial of the legitimate expectation led to the 
violation of Article 14. [Para 44]
Doctrines – Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Whether the High 
Court’s decision frustrates the legitimate expectation of the petitioners:
Held: Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules provided at the material time that 
25% of the posts of District and Sessions Judges should be fi lled by direct 
recruitment from the Bar on the basis of aggregate marks/grade obtained in 
the written examination and the viva-voce conducted by the High Court – The 
scheme of examination specifi cally stipulates that there shall be no cut off  
marks for the viva voce – The petitioners would have expected no minimum 
cut-off  for the viva voce in view of the express stipulation in the scheme of 
examination – Both the above expectations of the petitioners are legitimate 
as they are based on the sanction of statutory rules, scheme of examination 
– The decision of the Administrative Committee to depart from the expected 
course of preparing the merit list of the selected candidates is contrary to the 
unamended 1961 Rules – In the instant case, the requirement of a minimum 
cut-off  for the viva-voce was introduced after the viva voce was conducted – 
The petitioners had no notice that such a requirement would be introduced for 
the viva voce examination – The High Court’s decision to apply a minimum 
cut-off  for the viva voce frustrated the substantive legitimate expectation of 
the petitioners – Since, the decision of the High Court is legally untenable and 
fails on the touchstone of fairness, consistency, and predictability, such a course 
of action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. [Paras 46, 47, 51 and 52]
SIVANANDAN C T AND OTHERS v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND 
OTHERS
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Principles – Principles of good administration:
Held: 

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