The Supreme Court ruled in favor of District Judge aspirant Salam Samarjeet Singh, who had been disqualified due to a last-minute change in cut-off rules. The three-judge bench’s decision, led by Justices Roy, Dhulia, and Bhatti, ended Singh’s nine-year legal battle and ordered his immediate appointment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court provided relief to a District Judge aspirant, Salam Samarjeet Singh, who had been declared unsuccessful following a last-minute change to the cut-off rules during the selection process. The ruling, delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, also marked the conclusion of Singh’s nine-year-long legal battle by directing his immediate appointment.
Background of the Case
Singh had appeared for the District Judge (Entry Level) examination in the Manipur Judicial Service Grade-I in 2013. After clearing the written examination, he was scheduled to attend the viva-voce (interview) segment in 2015. However, just before the interview, the Full Court of the Manipur High Court introduced a resolution setting a minimum cut-off of 40 percent for the viva-voce. Singh, who scored 18.8 marks out of 50 (less than the required 40 percent), was subsequently declared unsuccessful.
Petitioner’s Argument: Defeated Legitimate Expectations
Singh challenged the decision, arguing that the new cut-off was implemented without prior notice, which violated his legitimate expectations. The Supreme Court found merit in this argument, noting that Singh had no opportunity to adjust his preparation in light of the new requirements.
“The petitioner was not notified about the minimum cut-off for the viva-voce segment, which was introduced just before the test and after the written examination had concluded. Had the candidate been informed in advance, he could have prepared accordingly, ensuring a fair and predictable process.”
-the Court reasoned.
Supreme Court’s Observations: Violation of Legal Procedure
The Supreme Court further scrutinized the 2015 resolution passed by the Manipur High Court, which introduced the 40 percent minimum cut-off for the interview. The Court observed that this resolution was not backed by an amendment to the existing judicial recruitment rules, specifically the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005.
“Although the introduction of a minimum cut-off via the High Court Resolution may have been intended with good faith, it lacks legal standing in this case as it cannot override statutory rules. The minimum marks for the interview were set by a High Court Resolution without amending the existing rules.”
-the Supreme Court noted.
The Court’s Verdict: Invalidating the 2015 Resolution
The Court concluded that the rules as they existed in 2013, when Singh first applied, should have been applied to his case. Under these rules, a candidate needed only to score a cumulative 50 percent or above to be considered successful. If this criterion had been applied, Singh would have been declared successful.
ALSO READ: SC Collegium Denies Justice Shamim Ahmed’s Request, Reaffirms Transfer to Madras High Court
“We are certain that no cut-off or pass marks were prescribed for the viva-voce examination when the recruitment advertisement was published. The Full Court’s decision to deviate from preparing the merit list according to the unamended rules clearly violates the petitioners’ legitimate expectations. This decision also fails the tests of fairness, consistency, and predictability, and thus breaches Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
– the Court asserted.
Directives for Appointment and Seniority
The Supreme Court directed the Manipur High Court to appoint Singh as a District Judge, albeit with a specific caveat regarding his seniority.
“However, the appointed petitioner will only be entitled to seniority from the date of his appointment and will not receive any actual monetary benefits for the period before his appointment. The appointee will be granted notional seniority from 2015, the year the interview was conducted, but this notional seniority is solely for the purpose of calculating superannuation benefits.”
-the Court clarified.
Representation in Court
- The petitioner was represented by a team of advocates including Rana Mukherjee, Ahanthem Romen Singh, Oindriala Sen, Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput, Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, and Rajiv Mehta.
- The Manipur High Court was represented by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, along with advocates Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Kavya Jhawar, and Nandini Rai.
