Service Law

Judiciary

— Subordinate judiciary — Recruitment process — Selection procedure — Written examination/interview — Fixation of cut-off marks — Power of High Court — Held, it was open to High Court to prescribe minimum pass marks for written and oral examinations in order to get the best available talent — There was nothing in the Rules concerned (Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991) barring such a procedure from being adopted — Rule in question itself conferred power upon High Court to evolve such procedure as it deem fit for selection — Concept of examination envisaged by the said rule justified prescription of minimum pass marks — Even if the Rules did not prescribe any particular minimum, High Court could supplement the Rules with a view to implement them by prescribing relevant standards — In this view, prescription of minimum pass marks by High Court for interview for further elimination of candidates after a comprehensive written test touching the required subject in detail, held, was not violative of the statute concerned, (2006) 6 SCC 395-A

Administrative Law

Subordinate/Delegated legislation

— Executive instructions — Role of, vis-à-vis statutory rules — Held, these instructions can always supplement the rules which may not deal with every aspect of a matter, (2006) 6 SCC 395-B

Service Law

Judiciary

— Subordinate judiciary — Recruitment process — Selection procedure — Interview — Fixation of minimum pass marks for appearing in interview — Such fixation, by High Court in relation to appointment to post of Munsif Magistrate, held, was justified — Indicating requisite qualities/capacities of a judicial officer, importance of interview in adjudging those qualities/capacities emphasised — Held, it is imperative that only persons with a prescribed minimum of said qualities/capacities should be selected as otherwise the standards of judiciary would get diluted and substandard stuff may get into judiciary, (2006) 6 SCC 395-C

Service Law

Recruitment process

— Procedure — Written examination/interview — Interview, importance and role of — Compared with written examination — Held, interview is the best mode of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position — It brings out overall intellectual and personal qualities of the candidate, (2006) 6 SCC 395-D

Service Law

Judiciary

— Judicial officers — Requisite qualities/capacities of, indicated, (2006) 6 SCC 395-E

Constitution of India

— Arts. 233, 234 and 235 — Appointments to subordinate judiciary — Duty of High Court to maintain high traditions and standards of judiciary by selecting proper persons, (2006) 6 SCC 395-F

Service Law

Reservation

— Filling up of reserved seats by open merit candidates where no eligible reserved candidate available — Held, was legal in view of the relevant rule (relating to judicial services) in said situation mandatorily requiring those seats to be filled up by open merit candidates, (2006) 6 SCC 395-G

Service Law

Reservation

— Dereservation — Whether selecting authority i.e. the High Court had power to decide that the reserved posts were to be dereserved to carry forward in the absence of a decision taken by the Govt. in this regard — Held, there was no dereservation involved at all in the present case — Even if it was assumed that it was a case of dereservation, the High Court only forwarded the list to Govt. and it was Govt. which approved the same, (2006) 6 SCC 395-H

Service Law

Recruitment process

— Panel/Select list/Reserve list/Waiting list/Merit list/Rank list — Select list — Right to challenge — Petitioners who were not eligible candidates, held, could not question the legality or otherwise of select list, (2006) 6 SCC 395-I

Evidence Act, 1872

— S. 115 — Estoppel — Candidates who participated in the interview with knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum pass marks, held, on being unsuccessful in interview could not turn round and challenge that the said provision of minimum marks was improper — Said challenge liable to be dismissed on ground of estoppel, (2006) 6 SCC 395-J

Precedents

Per incuriam decisions

— Decision made by High Court without reference to the relevant decisions of Supreme Court, held, was a per incuriam decision, (2006) 6 SCC 395-K

Constitution of India

— Art. 226 — Maintainability — Parties — Non-joinder of necessary parties — Petitioners challenging select list — If contention of petitioners accepted, it would result in total rearrangement of select list — In this view, held, all candidates of select list should have been impleaded as parties to writ petition — Defect of not impleading all candidates could not be cured by publication in newspaper — Where there were specified definite number of candidates who had to be impleaded (i.e. 70), resort could not be made to the said rule as it was not applicable herein, (2006) 6 SCC 395-L

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— S. 11 — Res judicata — Principle of — Applicability of — Bar to appeal due to — Several writ appeals filed by various parties (including appellant herein) aggrieved by decision of Single Judge of High Court — All the said appeals allowed except the one filed by the appellant herein — Appellant challenging before Supreme Court only the decision made in his writ appeal and the one made in one of the other writ appeals — Held, the decision in other writ appeals against which no appeal filed by appellant, attained finality — It operated as res judicata — Hence, appeal filed by appellant, held, liable to be dismissed, (2006) 6 SCC 395-M

Practice and Procedure

Sympathy

— Relief claimed on ground of — Denial of — Service matter — Non-selection — Where candidates in question could not be selected because of securing marks less than the prescribed minimum, relief sought on ground of sympathy rejected, (2006) 6 SCC 395-N

Service Law

Recruitment process

— Eligibility conditions — Relaxation — Relaxation in age for future recruitment — Relief of, sought by candidates who were found unsuitable for selection to subordinate judiciary — Denied by Supreme Court, (2006) 6 SCC 395-O