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."

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