HC Full Court Resolution Can’t Override Statutory Rules Where Method Of Final Selection Is Specified Categorically: SC Directs Appointment Of Judiciary Aspirant
The Supreme Court held that the Full Court resolution cannot override the statutory rules where method of final selection is specified categorically.
The Court directed the appointment of an aspirant belonging to SC (Scheduled Caste) category for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Manipur Judicial Service Grade-I.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “… we hold that the executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules where the method of final selection by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written and the viva voce examinations is specified categorically.”
The Bench said that while the intention for introducing a minimum cut-off through the High Court Resolution may be bona fide, in this case, it is not grounded in legality as it cannot override the statutory rules.
Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee appeared for the petitioner while Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background -
While deciding the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, there was a difference of opinion and having regard to the conflicting judgments rendered by the two Judges on October 7, 2016, the matter was directed to be placed before a three-Judge Bench. Thereafter, when a similar question of law was found pending before the Constitution Bench in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others (C.A. No. 2634/2013 & batch), this case was tagged with the said case. The petitioner in this case was a Judiciary aspirant belonging to SC category who appeared in the written examination conducted in July 2013. The Manipur High Court then issued a notification, declaring that none of the candidates had secured the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination.
A grievance was then raised by the petitioner and eventually a corrigendum was issued in 2014, declaring the petitioner to have been successful in the written examination having scored 52.8% marks which satisfied the required benchmark of 50% for the SC category. Just before the interview test, the Full Court of the Manipur High Court in 2015 decided to fix 40% as the cut-off for the viva-voce examination and the petitioner’s case was that this decision was never intimated to him. The petitioner who had secured 18.8 marks out of the total 50 marks in the interview segment, was held to be unsuccessful for not having the secured minimum prescribed benchmark of 40%. In the split judgment, Justice Banumathi upheld the rejection of the petitioner for failing to secure minimum 40% in the viva voce. On the other hand, Justice Shiva Kirti Singh held that the rejection in viva voce test was wrongful as it violated the statutory mandate which provided for selection based on the cumulative grade value obtained in the written exam and viva voce.
The following two issues arose before the Apex Court for consideration:
A. Can the executive instructions in form of a resolution of the Full Court by prescribing minimum marks for interview, override statutory rules made under Article 234/309?
B. Whether the High Court’s decision frustrates the legitimate expectation of the petitioner?
The Supreme Court in view of the first issue noted, “In the present case, the Resolution (12.1.2015) prescribing qualifying marks for viva voce is not a case of supplementing the rules but appears to us as a case where the Rules pertaining to the final selection of candidates, have been substituted. … The minimum marks for interview was prescribed through a High Court Resolution without amending the rules.”
With regard to the second issue, the Court said that no notice was given to the petitioner regarding the imposition of minimum 40% marks for interview and prescribing minimum marks for viva voce segment may be justified for the holistic assessment of a candidate, but in this case such a requirement was introduced only after commencement of the recruitment process and in violation of the statutory rules.
“The decision of the Full Court to depart from the expected exercise of preparing the merit list as per the unamended Rules is clearly violative of the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. It also fails the tests of fairness, consistency, and predictability and hence is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”, it observed.
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the principle of estoppel cannot override the law. It, therefore, upheld the opinion of Justice Shiva Kirti Singh and disagreed with the opinion rendered by Justice Banumathi.
“The petitioner, is therefore, entitled to be declared successful in the recruitment test. It is also noteworthy that despite getting more than 50% marks in the written exam, he was only called for the interview round after he filed a Right to Information (RTI) Application to know his marks. A corrigendum was later issued by the High Court in this regard”, it added.
The Court elucidated that it would be unjustified to deny the sole SC candidate, who successfully qualified both the written exam and the interview, in accordance with the then existing rules.
The Court issued the following directions –
I. The High Court should declare the petitioner to be successful by virtue of his scoring 50.6% in aggregate marks in the recruitment tests. He be issued appointment order. However, the appointed petitioner will be entitled to seniority only from the date of his appointment. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any actual monetary benefits for any period prior to his appointment.
II. The appointee should be given notional seniority from the year 2015 when the interview was conducted. It is however made clear that this notional seniority is only for the purpose of superannuation benefits.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the case and ordered that its directions be implemented within four weeks.
Cause Title- Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 647)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee, AOR Rajiv Mehta, Advocates Ahanthem Romen Singh, Oindriala Sen, Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput, and Khoisnam Nirmala Devi.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, AOR Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Advocates Kavya Jhawar, and Nandini Rai.
