Rule Prescribing Minimum Cut-Off In Interview Is Within State’s Legislative Competence: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Of District Judge Aspirant
The Supreme Court was considering a civil appeal involving the issue regarding the validity of Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
While dismissing an appeal filed by a District Judge aspirant, the Supreme Court has held that a rule prescribing a minimum cut-off in the interview was well within the legislative competence of the State and rationally connected to the objective of selecting capable judicial officers which was binding upon all candidates who willingly participated in the process.
The Apex Court was considering a civil appeal directed against the final judgment of the Rajasthan High Court involving the issue regarding the validity and constitutional vires of Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “In light of the foregoing analysis, we find no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The High Court correctly concluded that the challenge to the vires of Rule 41 was rendered academic by its subsequent deletion, and rightly recognized that the finalized appointments could not be disturbed. The rule prescribing a minimum cut-off in the interview was well within the legislative competence of the State, was rationally connected to the objective of selecting capable judicial officers and was binding upon all candidates who willingly participated in the process.”
“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”, it added.
AOR Prashant Bhushan represented the Appellant while AOR Mukul Kumar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case revolved around the recruitment process for the Higher Judicial Service in the State of Rajasthan, specifically pertaining to the appointment of Additional District Judges from the advocates’ quota. The State of Rajasthan promulgated the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Pursuant to the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, Rule 41 of the original 2010 Rules did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks for the viva-voce examination. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued notifying of 36 vacancies for the post of Additional District Judge under the advocates’ quota. Written examinations were conducted, and results were declared. However, owing to widespread agitation and allegations of anomalies, the Rajasthan High Court, acting on its administrative side, cancelled the entire recruitment process in 2010, resolving to hold the examinations afresh.
Thereafter, litigation arose when, on June 10, 2011, the State amended Rule 41 and Schedule IX of the 2010 Rules. Through this mid-stream amendment, a proviso was inserted into Rule 41, mandating that no candidate shall be recommended for appointment who fails to obtain a minimum of 25% marks in the interview. Consequently, a fresh advertisement was issued in 2011 for 39 vacancies. The appellant, harbouring legitimate aspirations for judicial service, participated in this renewed selection process. The written examinations were held in May 2012, and the appellant was declared successful and eligible for the interview round. The appellant’s name was excluded from the final list of selected candidates recommended for appointment. The appellant was awarded 7 marks out of 30 in the viva voce. Since the amended rules necessitated a minimum of 25% marks in the interview, the appellant fell short of the threshold by a mere 0.50 marks.
Aggrieved by this disqualification, the appellant, along with similarly situated individuals, initially approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, assailing the vires of the amended Rule 41 and the select list. The Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the Article 32 petition with liberty to approach the High Court. The appellant instituted a Civil Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The State of Rajasthan once again amended the Judicial Service Rules on November 28, 2017, completely deleting the contentious proviso that had mandated a minimum of 25% marks in the interview. Taking cognisance of this subsequent 2017 amendment, the Division Bench of the High Court, vide the impugned judgment, summarily dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. The present appeal was thus preferred against this dismissal.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the order dated October 13, 2014, was not a mere interlocutory administrative directive, but it was a conscious, substantive judicial determination by the Court declining to interfere with the finalized appointments. The subsequent withdrawal permitted on December 3, 2014, pertained exclusively to the surviving portion of the writ petition-the academic challenge to the vires of Rule 41. “The doctrine of withdrawal cannot be weaponized to magically erase a final substantive dismissal of a specific prayer. The High Court was perfectly justified in holding that the challenge to the appointments had attained finality and could not be resurrected”, it added.
Dealing with the argument of the appellant that the introduction of a minimum cut-off in the interview violates the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which were approved by the Court, the Bench held that this argument fundamentally misconstrued the nature of the Commission’s report and the autonomy of the recruiting authority.
The Bench was of the view that the rationale behind prescribing a minimum benchmark for the viva-voce was neither arbitrary nor whimsical, but was rooted in profound administrative necessity. “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”, it added.
The Bench further held that the appellant’s entire claim was barred by the doctrine of estoppel. “It is a well-settled proposition of service jurisprudence that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of the prevailing rules, takes a calculated chance, and appears for the interview, cannot be permitted to turn around and assail the rules upon finding his name absent from the successful list. 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 further stated.
Considering that the recruitment process for the 2011 advertisement was finalised, and the selected candidates were appointed and posted as Additional District Judges as far back as July 2013, the Bench held that to appoint the appellant today, based on his aggregate marks, and to grant him retrospective seniority and consequential benefits, would violently disrupt the established seniority matrix of the entire judicial cadre.
Thus, finding no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court, the Bench noted that the High Court correctly concluded that the challenge to the vires of Rule 41 was rendered academic by its subsequent deletion, and rightly recognised that the finalised appointments could not be disturbed. Dismissing the appeal, the Bench affirmed the impugned judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.
Cause Title: Manoj Goyal v. Rajasthan High Court (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 699)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Prashant Bhushan, Advocates Neha Rathi, Kajal Giri
Respondent: AOR Mukul Kumar, Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, Advocates Saurabh Rajpal, Arushi Rathore, AOR Nidhi Jaswal