Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Qualifying Marks for Viva Voce in Judicial Selections: Ensuring Merit and Objectivity in Recruitment

Summary of the Judgement

• Case Name: Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. Vs High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors.

• Date: 6 May 2024

• Judges: Honourable Justice Hrishikesh Roy

• Advocates:

  • For Petitioners: Mr Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr Yatinder Singh, Mr Rameshwar Singh Malik

  • For Respondents: Mr Gautam Narayan (Patna), Mr Purvish Jitendra Malkan (Gujarat)

• Acts and Sections: Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 32, 233, 234, 235

• Cited Judgments: All India Judges Association vs Union of India (2002), Dr Kavita Kamboj vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Mahinder Kumar vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh

• Original Judgment

Analysis of the Judgement

The recent judgment delivered by Honourable Justice Hrishikesh Roy in the Supreme Court of India addresses the constitutionality of prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce segment in judicial appointments in Bihar and Gujarat. The cases involve multiple writ petitions challenging the recruitment process for the District Judiciary under the Bihar and Gujarat Judicial Services, explicitly focusing on the viva voce or interview segment of the selection process.

Key Observations and Legal Implications

1. Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Precedents:

• The petitions hinge on Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution, arguing that the imposition of minimum marks for the viva voce is arbitrary and discriminates against the petitioners.

• The court referenced several precedents, notably the All India Judges Association case (2002), which emphasized the need for transparency and objectivity in judicial appointments and accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission with certain modifications.

1. Shetty Commission Recommendations:

• The judgement delves into the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which advocated for no minimum cut-off marks in the viva voce to prevent arbitrariness in selection. However, the court noted that subsequent judicial interpretations have allowed room for discretion by High Courts to set such minimum criteria based on local needs and conditions.

1. Impact of Prescribed Minimum Marks:

• The court examined whether prescribing minimum marks for viva voce tests infringed on fundamental rights. It concluded that such prescriptions if made transparently and known in advance, are within the legal purview of the judiciary's administrative functions to ensure meritocracy and efficiency in judicial appointments.

1. Procedural Fairness and Administrative Discretion:

• The judgement underscores the balance between procedural fairness and the administrative discretion of High Courts in judicial recruitment. It highlighted that any deviation from announced criteria, particularly after the examination process has commenced, would be scrutinized under the principles of fairness and equality.

1. Practical Outcomes and Future Guidance:

• The ruling directs a nuanced approach towards using voce in judicial selections, advocating for a balanced criterion that accounts for both merit and the potential for subjectivity in interviews. It sets a precedent for future judicial recruitment policies, advising High Courts to frame clear, reasonable, and non-arbitrary rules regarding viva voce cut-offs.

Conclusion

This judgment is significant for its detailed analysis of the intersection of administrative discretion in judicial recruitment and the constitutional mandates of equality and fairness. It affirms the authority of High Courts to impose minimum qualifying marks for viva voce as long as such measures are reasonable, justified, and made known in advance to all candidates. The decision impacts the immediate parties and sets a judicial benchmark for similar disputes across India, ensuring that the selection process remains competitive and fair and adhering to the highest standards of judicial conduct and administration.