Summary
Advance statutory minimum interview marks for Bihar and Gujarat judicial recruitment were upheld. The Shetty Commission’s recommendations did not displace governing rules or impose an absolute ban on interview cutoffs. The thresholds were rational, Bihar’s bona fide corrective measures were authorised, and Gujarat’s rules were not invalid where its Public Service Commission had declined consultation. All petitions were dismissed, with directions promoting transparent rules, candidate clarification and timely recruitment.
Issues
- Whether judicial recruitment rules could prescribe minimum viva-voce marks despite the Shetty Commission recommendations.
- Whether the Bihar and Gujarat thresholds or selection procedures infringed equality.
- Whether Gujarat’s amendment failed for want of Public Service Commission consultation.
- What measures should improve recruitment transparency and timing.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaThe advance interview cutoffs bore a rational nexus to assessing well-rounded judicial suitability; no manifest arbitrariness or proved bias invalidated the rules or selection. (¶¶ 50, 53, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 80, 102)
- Appendix C, Clauses 10–13, Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951The challenged interview minimum was valid; the written-mark relaxation and bona fide moderation were traceable to the rules and recruitment terms, not a ground to waive the interview threshold. (¶¶ 4.1, 54, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 102)
- Rule 8(3), as amended in 2011, Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005The forty-percent interview qualifying threshold was upheld; it was notified in advance and distinct from a cutoff introduced during or after selection. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2, 44, 45, 48, 61, 66, 67, 68, 102)
- Articles 234, 235 and 320(3), Constitution of IndiaHigh Court consultation has constitutional primacy. On Gujarat’s facts, the Commission’s own refusal and applicable exemption regime defeated the nonconsultation challenge; the general mandatory/directory question under Article 234 was not decided. (¶¶ 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97)
Held
- Participation did not foreclose a challenge to alleged statutory or constitutional illegality. Res judicata from an earlier challenge by other candidates did not bar these different litigants, facts and additional contentions. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- All India Judges (2002) did not authoritatively prohibit minimum interview marks. Governing statutory rules take precedence over inconsistent Commission recommendations; absent rules, Supreme Court directions govern. Rules may be supplemented to fill gaps but not contradicted. Cases invalidating newly introduced cutoffs were distinguishable because these thresholds were published before recruitment commenced. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49)
- Written scores alone do not exhaust judicial suitability. Reasonable interview thresholds assess qualities relevant to presiding over litigation; the Bihar twenty-percent and Gujarat forty-percent minima were not disproportionate or manifestly arbitrary. Panels must remain sensitive to disadvantage and bias, but apprehension alone does not invalidate a rule; remedies remain for proved abuse. (¶¶ 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68)
- Bihar’s uniform, bona fide moderation and permitted written-aggregate relaxation benefited candidates and were authorised by the rules and advertisement. Correctable tabulation mistakes and subsequent corrections did not establish mala fides or statutory breach. The written-test relaxation provision did not require relaxation of interview marks, and vague bias allegations did not invalidate Gujarat’s process. (¶¶ 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80)
- Gujarat’s Commission had expressly requested removal of consultation language because the posts were outside its purview, and the exemption regulations were relevant. With due High Court consultation, that nonconsultation did not invalidate the amendment. The Court expressly did not finally determine whether Commission consultation under Article 234 is generally mandatory or directory. (¶¶ 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97)
- Moderation should preferably be addressed in the rules; panel designations may also be specified. High Courts should notify a designated clarification authority with defined responsibilities and a basic syllabus outline, adhere to recruitment timelines and promptly inform stakeholders of unavoidable exigencies. The judgment must reach all High Court Chief Justices. (¶¶ 98, 99, 100, 101)
- Both challenged interview provisions and the Bihar and Gujarat selections were upheld. All six writ petitions were dismissed without costs. (¶ 102)
Result
Writ petitions dismissed without costs; challenged recruitment rules and selections upheld. Recruitment-transparency and timing measures directed.