(A) Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, Rules 14, 18, 21 and 22; 11 and 30 – Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017, paragraph 12 – Service Law – Recruitment – Selection – District Judge Cadre– Viva voce – Cut-off marks -In Rule 21 of the 2001 Rules minimum of 30% marks in the viva-voce has been prescribed as the qualification criteria – Provisions of paragraph 12 of the 2017 Regulation, as the advertisement also prescribed minimum 20 marks out of aggregate of 40 in the Viva Voce test – Admitted position is that the 9 candidates who have been left out from being recommended for appointment, had found place in the select list in terms of Rule 21 of the 2001 Rules – As per Rule 18 of the 2001 Rules, the task of setting cut-off marks has been vested in the High Court but this has to be done before the start of the examination – High Court administration’s argument that a candidate being on the select list acquired no vested legal right for being appointed to the post in question – But if precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of the recruitment rules without there being a finding on such candidate’s unsuitability, such an action would fail the Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary – The reason behind the Full Court Resolution is that better candidates ought to be found – That is different from a candidate excluded from the appointment process being found to be unsuitable – Held that stipulations contained in Rule 21 of the 2001 Rules for making the select list were breached by the High Court administration in adopting the impugned resolution – The part of the Full Court Resolution of the Jharkhand High Court dated 23.03.2023 by which it was decided that only those candidates who have secured at least 50% marks in aggregate shall be qualified for appointment to the post of District Judge liable to be quashed – High Court directed to make recommendation for those candidates who have been 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. (Para 20, 21 and 25)
(B) Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, Rules 14 – Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017, paragraph 12 – Service Law – Recruitment – Selection – District Judge Cadre – Submission on behalf of the High Court administration that Rule 14 permits them to alter the selection criteria after the selection process is concluded and marks declared not proper exposition of the said provision – The said Rule 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 – The 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 – The content of Rule 14 has the tenor of a verification process of an individual candidate in assessing the suitability or eligibility. (Para 24)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 89 SC
[2024 INSC 97]
Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. High Court Of Jharkhand & Anr.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 753 of 2023 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 921 of 2023-Decided on 1-2-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-89-SC.pdf
