Prescribing Minimum Viva Voce Cut-Off For Judicial Appointments Is Reasonable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a civil appeal by a judicial aspirant challenging a proviso to Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, on the grounds that he had participated in the whole process without raising any issue. The proviso prescribed a minimum of 25% marks in the interview for the appointment of Additional District Judges from the advocates' quota before it was expressly removed by the State government in 2017.

The Court upheld the validity of prescribing a minimum qualifying benchmark in the viva voce for appointments to the higher judicial service, holding that such a requirement is rationally connected to the objective of selecting suitable judicial officers and cannot be termed arbitrary merely because it results in the exclusion of candidates with higher aggregate marks.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice PB Varale held that the appellant's claim was entirely barred by the doctrine of estoppel since he participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the prevailing rules.

It further noted that the rule prescribing minimum qualification was very well within the legislative competence of the State government, which carries the burden to select capable judicial officers. 

Relying on Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors(1986), the bench said: "The appellant participated in the written examination and the interview under the amended 2011 Rules with his eyes wide open. Having failed to secure the qualifying marks, he cannot now approbate and reprobate."

It refused to grant any relief to the appellant who pleaded that the contentious rule was ultimately removed by the State government. The bench acknowledged that while the appellant may have secured high aggregate marks, granting retrospective relief would place him unfairly above those who were appointed. Additionally, the Court would be flooded with similarly placed cases demanding retrospective appointments.

"The appellant, having failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce, has no vested right to appointment. The overarching need to preserve administrative finality, protect the settled seniority of serving officers, and prevent the opening of a floodgate of retroactive litigation absolutely precludes the granting of the relief sought."

To briefly state, the appellant challenged the division bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated February 8, 2018, whereby it refused to interfere with the selection and the appointment process for the vacancies notified in 2010. 

36 vacancies were notified by the State government, after which written examinations were conducted, and results were declared. However, owing to widespread agitation and allegations of anomalies, the High Court decided on the administrative side by cancelling the entire recruitment process. 

On June 10, 2010, the State government amended Rule 41, adding a proviso, whereby it mandated that no candidate shall be recommended for appointment who fails to obtain a minimum of 25% marks in the interview. A fresh notification was issued, and exams were conducted again in 2012. The appellant qualified the written examination but failed by 0.5 marks to secure the minimum qualification.

The appellant, along with similarly placed candidates, approached the Supreme Court in an Article 32 petition. It refused to interfere with the selection process but kept the larger issue of constitutional validity of Rule 41 pending. Subsequently, he was asked to agitate the matter before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the appellant relied upon the 2002 All India Judges Association case(AIJA) to argue that the same didn't prescribe any minimum qualification for interview. In the meanwhile, the State government once again amended the Rules, and on November 28, 2017, it deleted the contentious proviso to Rule 41.

Taking cognisance of this amendment, the High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition. Additionally, it noted that since the appellant participated in the whole process, he is estopped from challenging it.  Against this order, the special leave petition was filed. 

Failure to qualify 25% marks for interview would compromise the calibre of higher judiciary

The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether the minimum marks violated the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, also known as the First National Judicial Pay Commission, which was accepted by the Court in the AIJA case. The commission was set up in 1996 by the central government to examine the conditions of service, age and method of recruitment of judicial officers.

The bench referred to the Mahinder Kumar vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh(2013), where it categorically observed that the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, at best, operate as guidelines which the High Courts should keep in mind, but this doesn't take away the autonomy of the recruiting authority.

Further, the bench reasoned that the rationale behind prescribing 25% for viva-voce is neither arbitrary nor whimsical. It is rooted in the administrative necessity which is required for the post of Additional District Judge, a highly reputed judicial office, and the legislature is competent to specify a minimum benchmark.

Justice Varale, who authored the judgment, observed: "While a written examination objectively tests a candidate's academic legal knowledge, it is the viva-voce that brings out the essential intellectual and personal qualities required of a judge such as alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, and the ability to take decisive action. To suggest that a candidate who fails to demonstrate these minimum essential traits in an interview must nonetheless be appointed merely because of a high aggregate score would severely compromise the calibre of the higher judiciary. The 25% cut-off was a rational, considered benchmark prescribed to preserve the integrity and quality of judicial administration."

Headnote

Service Jurisprudence & Judicial Appointments – Doctrine of Estoppel – Challenge to Recruitment Rules by Unsuccessful Candidate - Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – Rule 41 (as amended in 2011) – A candidate who willingly participates in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the prevailing rules, takes a calculated chance, and appears for the viva-voce examination cannot turn around and challenge the validity of the recruitment criteria or qualifying benchmarks upon being declared unsuccessful - The doctrine of estoppel operates fully against such a candidate who attempts to approbate and reprobate. [Relied on Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., (1986) Supp SCC 285; Madan Lal and Others v. State of J & K and Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 486; Dhananjay Malik and Others v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 171; Paras 20-30]

Judicial Education & Service – Shetty Commission Recommendations – Status of Guidelines vs. Statutory Rules - Recruitment of Additional District Judges – Viva Voce Cut-Off Marks – The recommendations made by the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission) prescribing that there shall be no minimum cut off marks for the viva-voce test are merely advisory policy guidelines - They are not rigid statutory mandates and cannot override existing statutory service rules framed by a competent recruiting authority - Once statutory rules are formally enacted, the selection process must strictly adhere to them. [Relied on Mahinder Kumar v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 87; Malik Mazhar Sultan v. UP Public Services Commission, (2008) 17 SCC 703; Paras 17, 18]

Administrative Law & Public Services – Interview/Viva-Voce Benchmarks – Administrative Necessity - Prescription of Minimum 25% Qualifying Marks in Viva Voce – The introduction of a minimum qualifying benchmark for the interview stage is neither arbitrary nor whimsical; it is rooted in profound administrative necessity to preserve the integrity, calibre, and quality of judicial administration - While a written examination evaluates academic legal knowledge, the viva-voce is essential to judge crucial personal and intellectual qualities such as alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, and decisive capability required for a high judicial office like an Additional District Judge - A candidate cannot claim a right to appointment based solely on a high aggregate score if they fail to clear the minimum interview threshold. [Relied on Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan, (1988) 3 SCC 241; Paras 19-25]

Civil Procedure & Practise – Doctrine of Withdrawal – Effect of Substantive Interim Orders - Withdrawal of Writ Petition with Liberty to Approach High Court – The doctrine of withdrawal cannot be weaponized to erase a prior, conscious, and substantive judicial determination by the Court declining a specific prayer. When a specific prayer challenging finalized appointments is dismissed by the Supreme Court, the subsequent withdrawal of the surviving petition (e.g., academic challenge to the vires of a rule) does not resurrect the challenge against selected candidates or wipe away the finality attained by those appointments. [Paras 25-30].

Case Details: MANOJ GOYAL v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS|CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8142 OF 2018

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 695

Click here to read the judgment