VidhiSangh

Supreme Court of India · 25/01/2019

HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. ETC. versus P. MURALI MOHANA REDDY AND ORS. ETC.

[2019] 2 S.C.R. 409 · 2019 INSC 94

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

For absorption of ad hoc Fast Track Court judges, there was no separate viva voce qualifying minimum, but the governing Supreme Court directions required the prescribed aggregate across written examination and interview. Two candidates narrowly short of 100 were treated as qualifying by case-specific rounding. Two others were given one further examination opportunity under Article 142 and continuation pending that process, rather than immediate absorption.

Issues

  1. Whether absorption required minimum interview marks or a consolidated qualifying percentage.
  2. What relief was appropriate for the four candidates who fell below the aggregate threshold.

Provisions considered

Held

Result

Appeals disposed of: two candidates treated as qualified by rounding their aggregate marks; other two given a fresh written and viva voce opportunity within six months and continuation in service during that period. No costs.

Judgment PDF: Supreme Court of India, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 409.