Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Prescribing Minimum Qualifying Marks for Judicial Appointments Is Permissible; Does Not Violate Fundamental Rights”: Supreme Court Upholds Bihar and Gujarat Judicial Service Rules

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, in a significant verdict on Monday, upheld the constitutionality of the rules requiring minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce for judicial appointments in Bihar and Gujarat. The Bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the challenges against these rules, stating, “Prescribing minimum qualifying marks is permissible and does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of the candidates.”

The petitions challenged the Bihar and Gujarat Judicial Service Rules, which set minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce in judicial recruitment. Petitioners argued that these rules violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court was tasked with deciding if these requirements stood contrary to the principles laid down in the landmark ‘All India Judges Association’ case and the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which aimed to ensure a fair and efficient recruitment process for judicial appointments.

The primary writ petition centered on the Bihar Judicial Service Examination for District Judges in 2015, governed by the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951. The case highlighted several revisions to the recruitment process over time, including adjustments in the required minimum scores for qualification in both the written and oral parts of the exams. Parallel challenges were presented regarding the Gujarat Judicial Service Examination for Civil Judges under the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, which had similar qualifying criteria.

The Court conducted a meticulous review of both the Bihar and Gujarat recruitment processes. It found the imposition of minimum marks to be a “legitimate and reasonable filtration mechanism” aimed at maintaining high standards and meritocracy in judicial appointments.

On Maintaining Standards: “The stipulation of minimum marks in the viva voce is intended to ascertain the suitability of candidates for judicial roles, ensuring only those with adequate legal acumen and potential are selected.”

On Alleged Discrimination: “The rules do not discriminate but rather level the playing field by setting a benchmark for all candidates, thereby upholding the principles of equality and fairness in public employment.”

On Efficiency and Meritocracy: “These thresholds are crucial for selecting candidates who not only excel in written examinations but also demonstrate aptitude in articulating legal principles orally, which is indispensable for a judicial officer.”

The Court dismissed the petitions after finding no substantial merit in the arguments against the prescribed rules, stating that the procedures followed were transparent and consistent with the legal requirements and past precedents.

Decision The judgment concluded with the Court upholding the rules concerning minimum qualifying marks for viva voce in judicial appointments in the states of Bihar and Gujarat. It also recommended that both states consider procedural enhancements to ensure even greater transparency and fairness in future recruitment exercises.

Date of Decision: May 6, 2024

Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. V. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors.

Similar News