Judicial Service Recruitment: Supreme Court Strikes Down Unfair Cut-Off Marks for Viva-Voce

The case of Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr. addresses a crucial issue in judicial service recruitment. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether an executive decision by the High Court could override statutory rules by introducing new eligibility criteria after the recruitment process had commenced. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, striking down the introduction of minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce as unfair and legally untenable.

The dispute arose from a recruitment drive for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Manipur Judicial Service (MJS). The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate, had cleared the written examination but was declared unsuccessful in the interview due to a cut-off mark requirement introduced after the examination was completed. The Supreme Court held that this change was arbitrary and violated the principle of fairness in public employment.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that:

• The recruitment advertisement did not specify a minimum cut-off for the viva-voce segment.
• The cut-off of 40% for the viva-voce was introduced after the written exam was completed, making it a mid-course change in selection criteria.
• As per the unamended MJS Rules, 2005, selection was to be based on cumulative marks in written and viva-voce examinations.
• The High Court’s decision to reject his candidature on viva-voce grounds was against established principles of fairness.

Respondents’ Arguments

The High Court of Manipur argued that:

• The Full Court had the authority to prescribe a minimum cut-off for the interview.
• The 40% threshold ensured that only meritorious candidates were selected for judicial appointments.
• The grading system already indicated that a score below 40% in any segment was a failure.
• The petitioner’s challenge was not valid as he had participated in the viva-voce without objection.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the case in light of constitutional principles and past precedents, concluding:

• The MJS Rules, 2005, did not originally provide for a separate cut-off in viva-voce.
• The change introduced after the written examination violated the expectations of candidates.
• The principle of legitimate expectation dictates that candidates should be assessed based on the rules in place at the time of application.
• The Full Court resolution could not override statutory recruitment rules.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• The petitioner was entitled to appointment as per his cumulative marks.
• The High Court’s decision to introduce a cut-off at the viva-voce stage was invalid.
• The petitioner would receive notional seniority from 2015 but no back wages.
• The appointment was to be made within four weeks.

This ruling reinforces the need for transparency and fairness in public employment processes, ensuring that selection criteria remain consistent throughout the recruitment process.

Petitioner Name: Salam Samarjeet Singh.
Respondent Name: The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.
Place Of Incident: Manipur.
Judgment Date: 21-08-2024.

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

Download Judgment: salam-samarjeet-sing-vs-the-high-court-of-ma-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-21-08-2024.pdf