Summary
The High Court could supplement the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, which were silent on a minimum score for the suitability test, by requiring 50% separately in the written test and viva voce. The State could not reject the High Court’s promotion recommendations after seeking the Union Government’s opinion instead of completing consultation with the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could prescribe separate minimum marks for the written suitability test and viva voce when the service rules were silent.
- Whether the State could reject promotion recommendations after referring the matter to the Union Government.
Provisions considered
- Rules 6(1)(a) and 8, Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007Rule 8 requires a suitability test but does not set a minimum qualifying score; the High Court could fill that gap by administrative resolution. (¶¶ 5-11, 33-58, 65)
- Articles 233, 234 and 235, Constitution of IndiaThe constitutional scheme gives the High Court a central role in subordinate judicial appointments and control; the State must consult the High Court and cannot involve another authority in place of that process. (¶ 59-68)
Held
- Where the statutory rules are silent on the qualifying marks for a suitability test, the High Court may supplement them through a Full Court resolution. The separate 50% minimum for the written test and viva voce was not inconsistent with the Rules. (¶¶ 49-58, 65)
- The State Government was required to consult the High Court on the promotion recommendations. Referring the issue to the Union Government and rejecting the recommendations on that basis was beyond the State’s role in the consultation process. (¶ 61-68)
Result
The appeals were dismissed; the High Court judgment directing the State to act on the recommendations was upheld.