Summary
Resolving a 2016 split verdict, a three-Judge Bench held that the Manipur High Court could not, by a Full Court resolution passed just before the interviews, impose a 40% minimum in the viva voce for District Judge (Entry Level) recruitment. The unamended Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 required selection on the combined grade value of the written test and viva voce. The Scheduled Caste petitioner, with 50.6% in aggregate, was directed to be appointed.
Issues
- Whether a Full Court resolution prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the interview could override statutory recruitment rules framed under Articles 234 and 309 that provided for selection on the aggregate of written and viva voce performance.
- Whether introducing the interview cut-off after the written examination, without notice to candidates, frustrated the petitioner's substantive legitimate expectation in violation of Article 14.
- Whether the petitioner, having taken part in the interview, was estopped from challenging the selection process.
Provisions considered
- Schedule B, Clause 3 (General Instructions), Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005The unamended clause set a written-test threshold for eligibility for the viva voce (50% for SC/ST candidates), required selection on the cumulative grade value of the written and viva voce examinations, and graded marks below 40% as 'F' with zero grade value. The Court read the 'F' grade as carrying no grade value, not as a fail mark for the interview; since the Rules specified the method of final selection, the residuary power of the recruiting authority to decide steps not provided for could not be used to add an interview cut-off. (¶¶ 6, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23, 26)
- Articles 234 and 309, Constitution of IndiaRules made under these provisions prevail over executive instructions; administrative instructions may fill gaps where the Rules are silent but cannot transgress or substitute a specific rule on the mode of selection. (¶¶ 12, 22, 23, 24, 26)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaApplying the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation from Sivanandan C.T., the Full Court's departure, without notice and after the written test, from preparing the merit list on aggregate marks as the Rules provided failed the tests of fairness, consistency and predictability and violated Article 14. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 31)
Held
- Executive instructions cannot override statutory rules that categorically specify the method of final selection by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written and viva voce examinations. The Full Court resolution of 12 January 2015 imposing a 40% interview cut-off substituted the Rules rather than supplementing them, and the 2016 amendment adding that cut-off could not apply to a recruitment that had already concluded. (¶¶ 15, 18, 24, 26)
- Prescribing minimum marks for interview is not in itself arbitrary or contrary to All India Judges (2002), as Abhimeet Sinha held. But Kavita Kamboj, which allows rules to be supplemented where they are silent, does not apply where the Rules themselves fix the mode of evaluation; Sivanandan C.T., where a cut-off contrary to rules providing for aggregate marks was struck down, applies squarely. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Under the unamended Rules the petitioner's aggregate of 50.6% would place him in grade 'B', and a candidate with that grade cannot logically be treated as failed; on the Rules then in force he qualified. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- The unamended Rules created a legitimate expectation that the merit list would be drawn on aggregate marks. Introducing a viva voce cut-off on the eve of the interview, after the written examination and without notice, defeated that expectation and failed the tests of fairness, consistency and predictability, violating Article 14. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Participation in a selection process means accepting the prescribed procedure, not any illegality in it. Estoppel cannot override the law, so a candidate who alleges misconstruction of statutory rules is not barred merely because he took part. (¶ 32)
- The Bench agreed with Shiva Kirti Singh J.'s opinion in the split verdict and not with Banumathi J.'s. (¶¶ 8, 9, 33)
Result
Writ petition disposed of: the High Court to declare the petitioner successful and issue him an appointment order within four weeks, with seniority from the date of appointment and no monetary benefits for the earlier period, but notional seniority from 2015 for superannuation benefits only; parties to bear their own costs.