District Judges Selection | Interviews Meant To Test Practical Understanding Of Candidates : CJI DY Chandrachud

Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud on Wednesday shared his experiences as a High Court judge while discussing the selection process for district judiciary candidates. The CJI's remarks came during a hearing before a constitution bench he was presiding, which was reviewing a set of petitions filed by eleven aspirants seeking selection as District judges in the State of Kerala.

The petitioners had challenged a decision made by the Kerala High Court, which imposed a cut-off mark for the viva-voce element of the examination. They argued that the exam scheme and the recruitment notification did not specify any such cut-off requirement, rendering the High Court's actions contrary to the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules, 1961. While the constitution bench eventually held as illegal the process followed by the Kerala High Court in fixing a cut-off mark for the viva-voce, during the hearing, CJI Chandrachud expressed his understanding of the selection committee's perspective. He stated–

"We have all been High Court judges. When you sit in the selection committee, you are looking at the best interest of the institution. The motive is very, very laudable. The question is whether it is lawful. Sometimes what happens is that the High Court thinks that look this is the crop which we are taking in the judiciary, that is what weighs with them." 

Upon the CJI's comments, Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh, representing the petitioners, emphasized the need for transparency and fairness in the selection process. He pointed out that certain favored candidates had scored lower marks in the written examination but received a significant boost in their overall scores due to the viva-voce round. He said–

"The cream is to be included, no doubt but not after the event. They had the tabulated marks before them. See the favoured candidates, they got low marks in the written examination, jacked up by the viva."

CJI Chandrachud responded by reflecting on his own experience conducting interviews as a High Court judge and revealed how the interview process was based on a range of substantive issues meant to test the practical understanding of the candidate. He said–

"Even in the interviews, we have all attended interviews, you have questions on a lot of substantive issues. I can tell you that as judges of the High Courts, when we sat in these interview panels, at least I used to prepare a question bank of 180-200 questions because you would be sitting there for five days, six days after work and sometimes even during work days but after court hours. But the questions which you posed were also on substance. Because of this person was just mugging up the questions and the answers, sometimes you would throw a practical question on say res judicata; not what do you mean by res judicata but say, would res judicata apply in this situation. The questions are all on the nittygritties of the craft."

Case Title: Sivanandan CT and others vs High Court of Kerala W.P.(C) No. 229/2017, Fathimma Beevi M M And Ors. v. High Court Of Kerala W.P.(C) No. 379/2017 and Alphonsa John and others vs High Court of Kerala W.P.(C) No. 618/2017