Judicial Service Recruitment | Is Cut-Off For Viva-Voce Arbitrary? Supreme Court Hears Candidates' Plea

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in view of large-scale vacancies, observing that while 42 vacancies were available, only 13 candidates were selected.

The CJI observed that recruitment exercises yielding very few successful candidates despite a large number of vacancies was a matter of concern.

“When you undertake an entire exercise of exam, one should also think of what is the output I got. You spend public money and most importantly you invest a lot of time. And if ultimately outcome is very minimal, then maybe that something that has to be looked into”, the CJI remarked.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by practising advocates Ajay Kumar Shyamkishor Tripathi, Suvidha Ramnath Patil and Anita Bansi Dhule. The petitioners had participated in the 2024 recruitment process for the Maharashtra Higher Judicial Service.

The recruitment process consisted of a written examination and a viva voce carrying 50 marks. While the petitioners cleared the written examination and were called for interview, they failed to secure the minimum 40 per cent marks prescribed in the viva voce under Rule 6(e)(ii) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. As a result, their names did not figure in the final select list.

Noting that one of the petitioners had secured the third position in the written examination, the Court highlighted that the candidates could not be selected solely because they failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks in the interview.

The Court observed that since a large number of vacancies remained unfilled, and since two of the three petitioners were women candidates and one belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, their cases could be considered sympathetically by the High Court.

The Court said that if the High Court was satisfied, it could relax the requirement of minimum viva voce marks by invoking powers under the statutory rules or adopt any other transparent mechanism for considering the petitioners. However, the Court clarified that the decision on their overall suitability would remain entirely within the High Court's discretion.

Petitioners raise concerns over minimum mark criteria in viva-voce

During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners argued that the issue of minimum qualifying marks in interviews required reconsideration by the Supreme Court. He submitted that judicial service recruitments across States frequently resulted in only a fraction of advertised vacancies being filled because candidates failed either written examination cut-offs or interview cut-offs.

Referring to the Maharashtra recruitment, Bhushan said that 42 vacancies were available, 2,751 candidates appeared in the preliminary examination, 421 qualified for the mains examination and only 43 candidates were called for interviews, out of whom only 13 were finally selected. He pointed out that one petitioner had secured the third-highest marks in the written examination but received 18 out of 50 marks in the interview, falling short of the qualifying threshold of 20 marks by two marks.

Bhushan contended that several Supreme Court decisions had expressed concern about allocating excessive weightage to interviews and about prescribing minimum qualifying marks in viva voce tests.

He submitted that interview cut-offs gave interview boards arbitrary power to eliminate candidates who had otherwise performed well in written examinations. He argued that judicial service examinations were repeatedly producing situations where only one-fourth or one-fifth of vacancies were ultimately filled.

Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that in judicial service recruitment, interview boards assess factors such as temperament, behaviour and the manner in which a candidate responds to questions.

“In judicial services, how the candidate react to a question, how he behaves, the body language, the temperament, all these factors are very, very important…For the higher post which are based upon experience, even there also recommendation is that give higher marks for viva voce. Say, for example, if you are recruiting newly graduated law graduates for the entry level, then marks(for interview) should be minimum that 12% or something, but written examination will be more. But if you go for a district judge, yes, then you are examining a person, you are interviewing a person who has had 10 year, 12 year, 7 year minimum practice to his credit”, he said.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that minimum standards have to be set for qualifying for the post of District judges. “There is a very big problem of employability. There are a number of law graduates, many people take exam, but when it comes to recruitment, we have to also have a basic minimum standard”, he said.

Bhushan nevertheless urged the Court to revisit the larger question of whether minimum qualifying marks should be prescribed in interviews at all. He submitted that there were conflicting judgments on the issue.

CJI Kant criticised the practice of judicial officers having to evaluate the answer sheets, as it requires a different academic approach.

“This kind of practice can be discouraged where the judicial officers are asked to evaluate the answer sheets for 2 reasons. One is that for evaluation of answer sheet the typical temperament required is different. It is a more an academical exercise. Second is that the judicial officers are so preoccupied with their day to day work, it has become difficult for them”, he said.

He suggested that the exercise could be entrusted to academics or retired experts rather than overburdened serving judicial officers. He shared a practice previously followed in Chandigarh under which a serving Vice-Chancellor constituted teams of law teachers from different institutions to jointly evaluate answer scripts at the judicial academy.

The Court observed that questions concerning prescription of minimum viva voce marks and the possibility of a uniform national framework for judicial service recruitment could be examined separately in the broader judicial services proceedings already pending before a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

The Court ultimately confined relief in the present case to permitting the Bombay High Court to sympathetically consider the petitioners' cases in view of the large number of unfilled vacancies.

Background

The petitioners had challenged a Bombay High Court judgment dismissing their writ petition seeking appointment against unfilled District Judge vacancies. The High Court held that Rule 6(e)(ii) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 expressly requires candidates to obtain at least 40 per cent marks in the viva voce to become eligible for selection. Since the petitioners had failed to secure the prescribed minimum marks, they could not claim appointment merely because vacancies remained available. The High Court also held that courts could not issue a writ directing appointments contrary to recruitment rules.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 18274/2026 

Case Title – Ajaykumar Shyamkishor Tripathi v. Registrar General