Unseating Judges After 6 Yrs Experience Is Against Public Interest Though Their Selection Was Illegal : Supreme Court In Kerala District Judges Case

The Supreme Court cited public interest to allow certain judicial officers in Kerala to continue in their posts, despite finding that the process followed by the Kerala High Court in selecting them was illegal and arbitrary. Noting that six years have elapsed since their selection, the Court opined that unseating those officers "would be contrary to public interest".

"Candidates who have been selected nearly six years ago cannot be unseated. They were all qualified and have been serving the district judiciary of the state. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest. To induct the petitioners would be to bring in new candidates in preference to those who are holding judicial office for a length of time. To deprive the state and its citizens of the benefit of these experienced judicial officers at a senior position would not be in public interest", the Court stated.

Though the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had pronounced the judgment in the open court on July 12, the copy was uploaded only today morning. 

The issue before the bench comprising CJI Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra related to the decision taken by the Kerala High Court to fix a cut-off mark on the basis of viva-voce for the selection of District Judges in March 2017. The Supreme Court noted that cut-off was fixed by the High Court after the conduct of the viva voce, which was "manifestly arbitrary".

The Supreme Court further noted that the provisions of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules, 1961 (the 1961 Rules) provided that aggregate of the written test and the viva voce would be taken into consideration for appointment. The exam scheme and the recruitment notification also did not stipulate any cut-off for viva-voce. Hence, the process was held to be "ultra-vires" the rules.

However, the Court refrained from invalidating the selection of candidates in view of the fact that six years have elapsed since their appointment, during which the appointed candidates have performed judicial functions.

"At this lapse of time, it may be difficult to direct either the unseating of the candidates who have performed their duties. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest since they have gained experience as judicial officers in the service of the State of Kerala. While the grievance of the petitioners is that if the aggregate of marks in the written examination and viva-voce were taken into account, they would rank higher than three candidates who are respondents to these proceedings, equally, we cannot lose sight of the fact that all the selected candidates are otherwise qualified for judicial office and have been working over a length of time. Unseating them would, besides being harsh, result in a situation where the higher judiciary would lose the services of duly qualified candidates who have gained experience over the last six years in the post of District Judge"

At the same tame, in a succour to the petitioners, the Court clarified that their failure to get selected will not be treated as a reflection on their merit and that it will not come in their way in future selections.

The other conclusions of the judgment are as follows :

(i) The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14;

(ii) An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation has to establish the following: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and that (ii) the denial of the legitimate expectation led to a violation of Article 14;

(iii) A public authority must objectively demonstrate by placing relevant material before the court that its decision was in the public interest to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation;

(iv) The decision of the High Court of Kerala to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is contrary to Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules.

(v) The High Court’s decision to apply the minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce frustrates the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. The decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Detailed report of the hearing can be read here - Supreme Court Says Kerala HC Erred In Fixing Cut-Off For Viva-Voce In 2017 District Judge Selection; Refrains From Unseating Selected Candidates

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

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658; 2023 INSC 709

Click here to read the judgment