Supreme Court Rules on Judicial Appointment Dispute in Manipur High Court

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr., delivered a significant ruling on October 7, 2016, concerning judicial appointments and selection criteria. The case revolved around a dispute regarding the recruitment of a District Judge (Entry Level) in Manipur Judicial Services Grade-I, where the petitioner challenged his rejection after securing the minimum required marks in the written examination but failing to meet a newly imposed cutoff in the viva-voce.

The Supreme Court was divided on the issue, with Justices Shiva Kirti Singh and R. Banumathi delivering dissenting judgments. The matter was eventually referred to a larger Bench for final adjudication.

Background of the Case

The dispute began with an advertisement published on May 15, 2013, inviting applications for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Manipur Judicial Services under the Manipur Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2005. The selection process comprised a written examination followed by a viva-voce (interview). Candidates from the unreserved category needed to score 60% in the written exam, while Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates needed 50%.

The petitioner, Salam Samarjeet Singh, belonging to the SC category, secured 52.8% in the written examination. Initially, the High Court of Manipur declared that no candidates had qualified, but upon representation, it issued a corrigendum on February 7, 2014, confirming that the petitioner was the only successful candidate eligible for the viva-voce.

Nearly a year later, on January 12, 2015, just weeks before the scheduled interview, the Full Court of the Manipur High Court adopted a resolution introducing a minimum 40% qualifying mark for the viva-voce. Singh appeared for the interview on February 12, 2015, but obtained only 18.8% (less than the new 40% requirement). Consequently, he was declared unqualified.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner contended that the introduction of a minimum qualifying mark for viva-voce after the selection process had begun was a violation of the ‘rules of the game’ principle.
• He argued that selection should be based on cumulative grading of written and viva-voce marks, as per the original advertisement.
• Since the selection process did not initially require a minimum viva-voce mark, imposing a new cutoff was arbitrary and unfair.
• He cited K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) as precedents against mid-selection rule changes.

Respondents’ (High Court of Manipur) Arguments

• The High Court argued that it had the authority under Clause 1(3) of the General Instructions of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules to introduce additional measures to ensure fair selection.
• The prescription of 40% marks for the interview was meant to maintain a uniform standard for judicial officers.
• Setting minimum viva-voce criteria aligned with evaluation methods that ensure only competent candidates are selected.
• As per Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi (2010), an institution has the right to introduce additional selection parameters.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered two separate judgments, with a split decision between Justices Shiva Kirti Singh and R. Banumathi.

Justice Shiva Kirti Singh’s Judgment (In Favor of Petitioner)

• He ruled that the retrospective introduction of a 40% qualifying mark for the viva-voce was unlawful and violated the original selection criteria.
• He emphasized that the recruitment rules specified a cumulative grading system, and the new rule was added without amending the rules.
• He stated that the introduction of viva-voce cutoff marks after the written test was conducted amounted to ‘changing the rules of the game’ and cited K. Manjusree (2008) in support.
• He ordered that the petitioner’s interview result be quashed and his appointment as a District Judge be reconsidered retrospectively from April 1, 2015.
• He directed that the petitioner should be compensated with notional benefits and a cost of Rs. 50,000.

Justice R. Banumathi’s Judgment (In Favor of Respondents)

• She upheld the decision of the Manipur High Court, stating that prescribing a minimum qualifying mark for the viva-voce did not constitute an arbitrary change.
• She reasoned that judicial posts require stringent quality checks and that interview assessments are crucial for evaluating suitability.
• She noted that other High Courts also require minimum viva-voce marks, and it was a fair measure to maintain the standard of the judiciary.
• She concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required benchmark and was, therefore, not entitled to appointment.

Key Legal Precedents Cited

• K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008): Held that changing selection criteria after the process has begun is not permissible.
• Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008): Stated that minimum marks for interviews cannot be introduced after the selection process starts.
• Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi (2010): Allowed institutions to introduce reasonable selection criteria as long as they are not arbitrary.
• All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002): Supported the need for quality assessment in judicial selections.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s split decision left the matter unresolved and referred it to a larger Bench. The ruling has significant implications:

• Judicial Selection Procedures: Clarifies that recruitment rules should be applied consistently without mid-process alterations.
• Ensuring Fairness in Selection: Reinforces that retrospective changes to selection criteria must be scrutinized for arbitrariness.
• Future Recruitment Reforms: Highlights the need for explicit provisions in recruitment rules regarding viva-voce evaluations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal underscores the importance of transparency in judicial selection. While Justice Shiva Kirti Singh found the rule change unfair, Justice R. Banumathi upheld it as a reasonable quality control measure. The case was referred to a larger Bench, leaving the final decision on retrospective selection criteria pending.

The case serves as a crucial precedent for judicial recruitment policies, balancing the need for merit-based selections with adherence to pre-declared criteria.

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 High Court of Manipu Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-10-2016.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Shiva Kirti Singh
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category