A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This case delves into whether executive instructions in the form of a Full Court resolution can override statutory rules under Articles 234 and 309 of the Indian Constitution. It arises from a recruitment process for the Manipur Judicial Service (MJS) Grade-I. The petitioner alleged that the prescription of 40% minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce by a resolution of the Full Court violated the unamended Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (MJS Rules). It further examines procedural fairness and the doctrine of legitimate expectations. The judgment highlights the supremacy of statutory rules and substantive legitimate expectations in recruitment processes. The petitioner was ultimately held entitled to appointment based on the aggregate score of written and viva-voce examinations under the unamended rules.
Keywords: Executive instructions, Legitimate expectation, Statutory rules, Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005, Procedural fairness.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgment Cause Title: Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr
ii) Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015
iii) Judgment Date: 22 August 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
vi) Author: Judgment delivered collectively.
vii) Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 885 : 2024 INSC 647
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
- Article 234 and 309 of the Constitution of India
- Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (MJS Rules)
ix) Judgments Overruled: None explicitly mentioned.
x) Related to: Constitutional law, Administrative law, Service law.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT
The dispute centers on the recruitment process for MJS Grade-I initiated in 2013 under the unamended MJS Rules, 2005. The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate, claimed his legitimate expectations were frustrated when the Full Court of the Manipur High Court introduced a 40% qualifying threshold for viva-voce through a resolution dated 12 January 2015. The unamended rules prescribed final selection based on cumulative marks in the written and viva-voce examinations. The Court evaluated procedural fairness, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and the legality of executive instructions vis-à-vis statutory rules.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
- The petitioner applied for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) under the SC category through an advertisement dated 15 May 2013.
- He scored 52.8% in the written examination, meeting the benchmark for SC candidates (50%).
- The High Court resolved to fix 40% minimum marks for viva-voce on 12 January 2015, without prior notice to candidates.
- The petitioner scored 18.8 out of 50 marks in viva-voce, aggregating to 177.3 out of 350 marks (50.6%), but failed due to the imposed cutoff.
- Rules were amended on 9 March 2016 to formally prescribe the 40% minimum viva-voce threshold.
- Split opinions by Justices Banumathi and Shiva Kirti Singh necessitated adjudication by a three-judge bench.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Can executive instructions through a Full Court resolution override statutory rules under Articles 234 and 309?
- Does introducing a viva-voce cutoff post-facto violate procedural fairness?
- Does the High Court’s action frustrate the legitimate expectation of the petitioner?
- Was the imposition of the cutoff consistent with the doctrine of fairness under Article 14?
F) PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
- The unamended MJS Rules, 2005 mandated cumulative scoring of written and viva-voce examinations. No threshold was prescribed for viva-voce.
- Imposing a 40% cutoff through a Full Court resolution post-advertisement altered the “rules of the game,” violating procedural fairness.
- The cutoff was introduced arbitrarily, without notice to candidates, frustrating legitimate expectations.
- The subsequent amendment of rules (9 March 2016) cannot retrospectively validate the cutoff for the 2013 process.
- The petitioner met the SC benchmark of 50% aggregate marks under the unamended rules and should be declared successful.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- The 40% viva-voce cutoff aligns with the evaluation chart under Schedule B of the MJS Rules, which grades marks below 40% as “F” with zero grade value.
- The resolution ensured holistic candidate evaluation and was bona fide.
- The petitioner’s cumulative score fell short due to his performance in viva-voce, justifying the rejection.
- Precedents like Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana upheld the imposition of minimum viva-voce thresholds.
H) JUDGMENT
a) RATIO DECIDENDI
- Statutory rules prevail over executive instructions. The resolution prescribing viva-voce thresholds was illegal as it contradicted the unamended MJS Rules, 2005.
- Legitimate expectations were violated. Candidates were entitled to evaluation based on aggregate marks as per the rules in effect during recruitment initiation.
- Post-facto amendments cannot alter recruitment processes retrospectively.
b) OBITER DICTA
- Imposing viva-voce thresholds is valid if incorporated prospectively with due notice to candidates.
- Procedural fairness is fundamental in recruitment processes governed by statutory rules.
c) GUIDELINES
- Recruitment authorities must strictly adhere to existing statutory rules.
- Amendments impacting recruitment criteria must be prospective and notified beforehand.
- Legitimate expectations and procedural fairness must be safeguarded in public employment processes.
I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The judgment reinforces statutory supremacy over executive instructions and highlights procedural fairness in public employment. It serves as a significant precedent for ensuring legitimate expectations in recruitment governed by statutory rules. The petitioner’s success vindicates principles of good governance and fairness.
J) REFERENCES
a) Important Cases Referred
- Sivanandan C.T. & Ors v. High Court of Kerala & Ors, [2017] 13 SCR 226.
- Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. Union of India, [2019] 15 SCR 273.
- Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, [2024] 2 SCR 1136.
b) Important Statutes Referred
- Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005.
- Articles 234 and 309 of the Constitution of India.