LexSIVANANDAN C.T. & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F [2017] 13 S.C.R. 226 SIVANANDAN C.T. & ORS. v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 229 of2017) NOVEMBER 14,2017 (KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Service Law - Judicial Service - Kera/a Higher Judicial Service - Selection of District & Sessions Judges -- As per notification dated 30-09-2015, the selection was to be conducted by written examination and viva-voce - It was stipulated that those general and OBC candidates who secured 50 per cent in the written examination rnithout any separate minimum and SC/ST who secured 40 per cent w~re qualified to participate in the viva-voce - However, in terms of the resolution of the Full Court dated 13-12-2012 there should be no minimum cut-off marks for the interview and merit list of successfiil candidates to be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained in the written examination and viva-voce - Appointment of candidates as per merit list drawn by Administrative Committee on the basis of minimum marks in viva-voce - Challenge to. on ground that introduction of requirement of the minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible - Held: Matter referred to larger bench to be heard alongwith Tej Prakash case. Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1. The decision in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another squarely applies to the facts of this case. In that case, a Bench of three Judges of this Court held that "introduction of the requirement of the minimum marks for G interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible". (Para 4) (229-A; C-D) H 226 SIVANANDAN C.T. & ORS. v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA 227 & ORS. 2. In the case ofTej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajesthan A High Court and others the Court has, however, specifically doubted the correctness of Manjusree on the point whether " .... changing the rules of the game after the game was played .... is clearly impermissible" and has made a Reference to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. It is also relevant in B this context to note that in Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur At Imphal and Anr. which dealt with almost a similar issue was heard by a three Judge Bench in view of the difference of opinion and it has also since been posted along with Tej Prakash. Hence, it is only appropriate to refer this matter also to the larger bench to be heard along with Tej Prakash. [Para 5) C (229-E-G] K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008] 2 SCR 1025 ; Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajas than High Court and ·others (2013) 4 SCC 540 ; Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High D Court of Manipur At Imphal and Anr. (2016) 10 SCC 484 : [2016) 9 SCR 771 - referred to. Case ·Law Reference (2008) 2 SCR 1025 (2013) 4 sec s40 [2016] 9 SCR 771 referred to referred to referred to Para4 Paras Paras CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 229 of2017. Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia WITH W. P. (C) Nos. 232, 379 and 618 of2017. V. Giri, Jaideep Gupta, R. Basant, Amarendra Sharan, Dr. K. P. Kylasanatha Pillay, Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Advs., P. V. Dinesh, E F Ms. Sindhu T. P., Rajendra Beniwal, Ms. Arushi Singh, Abhishekh Thakur, Bineesh K., C. N. Sree Kumar, Amit Sharma, Raghenth Basant, Mithun G Verghis, Ms. Liz Mathew, T. G. Narayanan Nair, K. N. Madhusoodhanan, Sajith. P. Warrier, Ms. Nazia Hasan, Mohd. Monish, Ms. Rajitha Th, P. A. Noor Muhamed, Giffara S., G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Vijay Shankar V. L, Prasanth P, Nebil Nizar, Ranjith K. C, Advs. for the appearing parties. H 228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R. A The following Order of the Court was passed: B c ORDER 1. The selection of District & Sessions Judges in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service in the year 2015 has given rise to this litigation. As per the Notification dated 30.9.2015 the selection was to be conducted by written exan)ination and viva-voce. The written examination of two papers carried 300 marks (150 marks for each paper). The viva-voce was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.