Judicial Appointment Rules Challenged: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Bihar and Gujarat High Courts’ Selection Process

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling in Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors., addressed the constitutionality of the selection criteria for judicial officers in Bihar and Gujarat. The petitioners challenged the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether these requirements were contrary to the law laid down in All India Judges Association (2002) and whether the selection process in both states was legally valid.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around six writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the interview segment for judicial appointments. These challenges arose in the context of recruitment to the District Judiciary in Bihar (2015) and the Civil Judge posts in Gujarat (2019 and 2022). The petitioners contended that such requirements were arbitrary and discriminatory.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-reservation-and-appointment-procedures-in-university-employment-case/

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued that:

• The requirement of minimum marks in viva voce contradicted the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, which were accepted in All India Judges (2002).
• The selection process unfairly disqualified candidates who had high aggregate marks but failed to secure the minimum viva voce marks.
• The process of awarding interview marks was subjective and could lead to unfair rejections.
• In Gujarat, the selection rules were amended without consulting the Public Service Commission, violating Article 234 of the Constitution.

Respondents’ Arguments

The High Courts of Patna and Gujarat defended their selection process, asserting that:

• ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ as a criterion required a holistic evaluation, including an interview component.
• The Shetty Commission’s recommendations were guidelines and not binding rules.
• The judiciary required high standards, and viva voce assessments ensured candidates were well-suited for judicial responsibilities.
• In Gujarat, the Public Service Commission had voluntarily excluded itself from the consultation process.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the selection process in both states, stating:

• Minimum marks for viva voce are not unconstitutional and do not violate All India Judges (2002). The judgment did not specifically prohibit such criteria.
• The Shetty Commission’s recommendations were advisory, and High Courts had the authority to prescribe stricter selection norms.
• The selection process in Bihar, despite moderation of marks, remained valid and did not show evidence of malafide intent.
• The Gujarat High Court acted within its constitutional powers when prescribing minimum viva voce marks, even without Public Service Commission consultation.

Conclusion

This ruling clarifies that High Courts have discretion in setting judicial appointment criteria, provided they adhere to constitutional principles. The Court’s decision reaffirms the importance of viva voce in judicial selection and upholds the existing framework in Bihar and Gujarat.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/madhya-pradesh-state-service-examination-dispute-impact-of-rule-amendments-on-reservation-candidates/

Petitioner Name: Abhimeet Sinha & Ors..
Respondent Name: High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Place Of Incident: Bihar, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 06-05-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: abhimeet-sinha-&-ors-vs-high-court-of-judica-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-06-05-2024.pdf