Written Exam Measures Knowledge, Interview Reveals Character & Capability: SC Upholds Minimum Mark Criteria In Interview For District Judge Appointment

The Supreme Court has upheld the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for interview in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat.

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the impugned Rules were not in violation of All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others, which had accepted certain recommendations of the Shetty Commission.

It was observed that, "The prescription of minimum cut off is also not perceived to be of such a nature that it reeks of irrationality, or was capricious and/or without any adequate determining principle. It does not appear to be disproportionate so as to adversely affect “meritorious” candidates, as has been argued. It is certainly not manifestly arbitrary, or irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For recruitment of judicial officers, ideally the effort should be to not only test the candidate’s intellect but also their personality. An interview unveils the essence of a candidate— their personality, passion, and potential. While the written exam measures knowledge, the interview reveals character and capability. Therefore, a person seeking a responsible position particularly as a judicial officer should not be shortlisted only by their performance on paper, but also by their ability to articulate and engage which will demonstrate their suitability for the role of a presiding officer in a court."

Senior Counsel Ajit Kumar Sinha, along with others, appeared for the petitioners, while Counsel Gautam Narayan, along with others, appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the unsuccessful candidates (petitioners) argued that the rule setting minimum passing marks for the oral interview does not create a fair competition ground. They contended that candidates who score higher in the written exam but fail to meet the minimum oral interview marks are disadvantaged compared to those who score lower in the written exam but surpass the minimum oral interview marks.

The Apex Court questioned whether those who had high marks in the written test by itself be considered in the “meritorious” category. It took the considered view that the high scores for the written test by itself do not determine the merit and suitability of an aspirant. In that context, it was further said that, "The performance would also depend on the social, economic, and cultural capital of the candidate. Access to resources such as coaching institutes, quality school education, financial stability, time and flexibility, networking opportunities, mentorship, and access to relevant study materials, are vital factors which also manifestly contribute to the performance in the written test."

It was said that the reliance on written tests as the sole determinant of merit is increasingly being frowned upon, while observing that, "This Court would like to believe that the members of the interview board can provide a level-playing field during the interview process for those who come from a disadvantaged background, to assess the true merit and potential of the interviewees. The solution lies in the interviewing members being aware and sensitive to alleviate bias in the process of Interview. However, the apprehension of bias cannot be the sole ground to strike down a Rule."

Subsequently, the impugned selection process was upheld.

Cause Title: Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. vs High Court of Judicature At Patna & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment