Today, 6th May, The Supreme Court, expressed its dissatisfaction with the prolonged delays in the recruitment timelines for judicial positions. Highlighting the crucial need for a swift and efficient judiciary, the Court emphasized the adverse effects of these delays on the delivery of justice. It called upon concerned authorities to expedite the recruitment processes and ensure transparency to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed its disappointment on Monday over the fact that only nine out of 25 states managed to complete the recruitment of judicial officers within the specified time frame. The Supreme Court had set a deadline for filling vacancies in district and subordinate courts, starting from March 31 and ending on October 31 of the same year. However, the timeline adjusted upon the request of several high courts to accommodate their needs.
A bench consisting of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized ,
“The recruitment process should strictly adhere to the established timeline. However, in cases of special and unavoidable circumstances, stakeholders must be promptly informed,”
Read Also: Supreme Court Requests Delhi HC’s Response on Judicial Officer’s Plea
The Supreme Court made these remarks in a ruling that affirmed the regulations setting the minimum passing marks in the viva voce examination as a component of the selection process for appointing judicial officers in Bihar and Gujarat.
It stated,
“According to a report from the Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning, although the judgment in Malik Mazhar (supra) set timelines for recruitment, only 9 out of 25 states managed to complete the recruitment of Civil Judge (Judge Division) within the specified time frame. The report highlighted that Bihar, for instance, required 945 days to finalize the recruitment process, starting from the date of advertisement on March 9, 2020, to the announcement of the final result on October 10, 2022.”
In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the significance of establishing a defined schedule for conducting judicial service examinations. The court referred to specific instances, stating that in the Bihar selection process, the advertisement was issued in January 2015, the final selection made on May 17, 2016, and the last candidate was called for an interview in August 2016 due to the need for certain adjustments. Similarly, in the case of civil judge selection in Gujarat, although the advertisement issued in 2019, the selection process only completed in 2021.
To prevent the lengthy and uncertain recruitment process observed in Bihar and ensure greater clarity and certainty in the process, the bench declared that procedures such as mark moderation should preferably be clearly defined in the rules. This would promote transparency and eliminate ambiguities in the selection process.
The statement read,
“It was stated that allowing the moderation of marks for valid reasons should be allowed when necessary to tackle the problem of insufficient candidates available for consideration during the interview stage,”
In addition, a series of guidelines issued, suggesting that, as a means of building confidence, the designation of individuals on the interview panel should also be clearly outlined in the relevant rules.
The report highlighted the lack of a specified authority for candidates to approach, stating,
“As this issue seems valid, the relevant High Court should appoint a designated authority for each recruitment process, delineating their roles, functions, and responsibilities clearly.”
It further emphasized,
“Candidates can then approach this designated authority for clarification in case of any doubts, which would significantly alleviate their anxiety.”
Read Also: Supreme Court Reviews Delhi HC’s Remarks on Judicial Officer’s Conduct
The bench further proposed an idea of providing a fundamental syllabus outline for the upcoming test. This would assist candidates from various backgrounds in planning and preparing for the examination well in advance, even before it is officially announced.
The judgment stated,
“For all stakeholders to appropriately act on the directions provided above, this judgment must be communicated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts,”