A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case addresses the legality of the selection process for the District Judge Cadre in Jharkhand, focusing on altering selection criteria after candidates’ performance was assessed. The Jharkhand High Court, via a Full Court Resolution, introduced a qualifying criterion requiring candidates to secure a minimum of 50% aggregate marks (combination of main examination and viva-voce) for recommendation to the post of District Judge. This action was challenged for contravening statutory rules under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment, and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 and the 2017 Regulations. The Supreme Court quashed the Full Court Resolution, emphasizing adherence to statutory rules and rejecting post hoc changes to selection criteria, reaffirming principles of service jurisprudence.

Keywords: District Judge Cadre, Alteration in selection criteria, Recruitment Rules, Service Jurisprudence, Rule of Law.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. The High Court of Jharkhand & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 753 of 2023

iii) Judgement Date:
01 February 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

vi) Author:
Justice Aniruddha Bose

vii) Citation:
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 217 : 2024 INSC 97

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001: Rules 14, 18, 21, 22.
• Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017: Regulation 12.
• Constitution of India: Article 14.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None explicitly mentioned.

x) Case Related to which Law Subjects:
Service Law, Constitutional Law, and Judicial Administration.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The Jharkhand High Court initiated recruitment for 22 posts in the District Judge Cadre, governed by the 2001 Rules and the 2017 Regulations. After the main examination and viva-voce, a merit list was prepared. Subsequently, the High Court, in a Full Court Resolution, imposed a 50% minimum aggregate mark criterion as a qualifying requirement. This led to exclusion of some candidates who were otherwise eligible based on the original selection criteria. Aggrieved candidates challenged the alteration, arguing that it violated the principles of fairness and the statutory recruitment framework.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The recruitment was announced via Advertisement No. 01/2022 on 24 March 2022.
2. The recruitment process included a main examination (200 marks) and viva-voce (40 marks). Candidates were required to score at least 20 marks in the viva-voce to qualify.
3. Based on the 2001 Rules, a merit list of 66 candidates was published for 22 vacancies.
4. The High Court recommended only 13 candidates for appointment, citing the new 50% aggregate mark criterion introduced in a Full Court Resolution dated 23 March 2023.
5. Aggrieved candidates filed writ petitions alleging post hoc changes in selection rules and violation of legitimate expectations.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the High Court was justified in altering selection criteria after candidates’ performance was assessed.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsel argued that the Full Court Resolution violated the 2001 Rules and 2017 Regulations, which prescribed the selection procedure.
ii) Imposing new criteria post hoc contradicted the principles laid down in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11.
iii) They contended the change was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
iv) Legitimate expectations of candidates were frustrated, as they had no notice of additional qualifying criteria before the process.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The High Court defended the Full Court Resolution, asserting its administrative authority to enhance standards for judicial appointments.
ii) It cited Rule 14 of the 2001 Rules, claiming the provision allowed such adjustments for ensuring candidate suitability.
iii) The counsel distinguished the aggregate mark criterion from viva-voce cut-offs in earlier cases, arguing for greater flexibility in the selection process.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
i) Changes in selection criteria post hoc violate statutory recruitment rules.
ii) Such changes undermine the legitimacy of the process and contravene Article 14, breaching the equality principle.

b. Obiter Dicta (if any)
i) Judicial appointments require transparency and adherence to rules for maintaining trust in the judiciary.

c. Guidelines (if any)

1. Selection criteria must be fixed before initiating recruitment.
2. Legitimate expectations of candidates should not be disregarded.
3. Courts should ensure strict adherence to statutory rules in service recruitment processes.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that mid-selection changes are impermissible, ensuring fairness and predictability in recruitment. It emphasized strict adherence to statutory frameworks and protection of candidates’ legitimate expectations. This judgment reinforces procedural fairness in service jurisprudence, especially for judicial appointments.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:
i) K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512.
ii) Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11.
iii) State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220.
iv) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, (2023) INSC 709.

b. Important Statutes Referred:
i) Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001.
ii) Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017.
iii) Constitution of India, Article 14.