LexSUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 217 : 2024 INSC 97 Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. The High Court of Jharkhand & Anr. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 753 of 2023) 01 February 2024 [Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in altering the selection criteria after the performance of individual candidates was assessed for selection to the posts of District Judge Cadre in the State of Jharkhand. Headnotes Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 – rr.14, 18, 21 – Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017 – Selection to the posts of District Judge Cadre in the State of Jharkhand – Alteration in selection criteria after the performance of individual candidates was assessed – Higher aggregate marks prescribed in deviation from the statutory rules – By way of Full Court Resolution, High Court introduced securing 50 per cent marks in aggregate (combination of marks obtained in main examination and viva-voce) as the qualifying criteria for being recommended to the posts of District Judge – Impermissibility: Held: Under r.18, the task of setting cut-off marks was vested in the High Court but this was to be done before the start of the examination – Stipulations contained in r.21 for making the select list were breached by the High Court administration in adopting the impugned resolution – Plea that applying a higher aggregate mark was not barred under the Rules or Regulations, not accepted – The very expression “aggregate” means combination of two or more processes and in the event the procedure for arriving at the aggregate has been laid down in the applicable Rules, a separate criteria cannot be carved out to enable change in the manner of making the aggregate marks – If the High Court is permitted to alter the selection criteria after the performance of individual 218 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports candidates is assessed, that would constitute alteration of the laid down Rules – Plea of the High Court administration that r.14 permits them to alter the selection criteria after the selection process is concluded and marks are declared is not proper exposition of the said provision – r.14 empowers the High Court administration in specific cases to reassess the suitability and eligibility of a candidate in a special situation by calling for additional documents –High Court administration cannot take aid of this Rule to take a blanket decision for making departure from the selection criteria specified in the 2001 Rules – High Court to make recommendation for those candidates who were successful as per the merit or select list, for filing up the subsisting notified vacancies without applying the Full Court Resolution that requires each candidate to get 50 per cent aggregate marks – The part of the Full Court Resolution of the Jharkhand High Court by which it was decided that only those candidates who secured at least 50% marks in aggregate shall be qualified for appointment to the post of District Judge is quashed [Paras 20, 22-24] Service jurisprudence – Change in the rule midway – Discussed. Case Law Cited Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. v. High Court of Kerala, [2023] 11 SCR 674 : (2023) INSC 709 – followed. State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 165 : (1974) 3 SCC 220; Ram Sharan Maurya and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., [2020] 12 SCR 466 : (2021) 15 SCC 401 – distinguished. K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., [2008] 2 SCR 1025 : (2008) 3 SCC 512; Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, [2008] 5 SCR 1066 : (2008) 7 SCC 11 – relied on. Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Others: (2013) 4 SCC 540 – referred to. List of Acts Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001; Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017; Constitution of India. [2024] 2 S.C.R. 219 Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. The High Court of Jharkhand & Anr. List of Keywords District Judge Cadre; Altering the selection criteria; Higher aggregate mark; Qualifying criteria; Cut-off marks; Departure from selection criteria. Case Arising From CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.753 of 2023 (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India) With Writ Petition (Civil)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.