The Supreme Court’s deliberation led to the conclusion that in the absence of explicit rules regarding a minimum cut-off for viva voce, the High Court’s decision to prescribe such a condition via a Full Court resolution was justified
The Supreme Court of India, on February 13, 2024, upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s mandate that judicial officers aspiring for promotion to District Judges must achieve a minimum of 50% marks in interviews. This ruling, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Justices Manoj Misra, dismissed a series of special leave petitions filed by candidates who did not succeed under this criterion, as well as by the State of Haryana. These petitions challenged the High Court’s directive to the state to promote 13 judicial officers who had met the specified criteria.
The crux of the dispute centered around the promotion procedure under Rule 8 of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, that is:
Procedure for promotion for assessing and testing the merit and the
suitability of a member of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch)
for promotion under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6, the High Court
may-
(i) hold a written objective test of 75 marks and viva voce of
25 marks in order to ascertain and examine the legal
knowledge and efficiency in legal field;
(ii) take into consideration Annual Confidential Reports of the
preceding five years of the officer concerned:
Provided that any officer having grading as C (integrity doubtful)
in any year shall not be eligible to be considered for promotion.
specifically the 65% quota for selection through merit-cum-seniority. The High Court’s imposition of a minimum cut-off for the viva voce segment was contested, with the argument that the Rules did not explicitly prescribe such a criterion. The State of Haryana further contended that the High Court had overstepped by not consulting the State Government as required by Article 233 which is:
Appointment of district judges
(1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State,
(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.
before establishing the criteria.
The Supreme Court’s deliberation led to the conclusion that in the absence of explicit rules regarding a minimum cut-off for viva voce, the High Court’s decision to prescribe such a condition via a Full Court resolution was justified. This stance was further clarified by distinguishing the case from the precedent set in “Sivanandan CT and others v. High Court of Kerala and others,” where the rules of the Kerala High Court explicitly mentioned the cut-off, unlike the Haryana Rules which remained silent on the matter.
The Supreme Court underscored the significance of the interview process, especially for in-service judicial officers aiming for higher positions. It emphasized that the interview is not merely a formality but a critical assessment to gauge the candidates’ communication skills, judicial proficiency, and overall suitability for the role of an additional district and sessions judge. The Court observed,
“High Court is correct in coming to the conclusion that apart from having substantive knowledge of the law, the in-service judicial officer must possess communication and other skills which would emerge in the course of an interview.”
Furthermore, the Court addressed the State Government’s reliance on Article 233, stating that the absence of explicit rules warranted a consultative process to resolve any issues between the State and the High Court.
“We have come to the conclusion that the State was in error in finding fault with the High Court,”
the Court remarked, dismissing the argument that the High Court’s action constituted an infringement on its independence.
This ruling not only reaffirms the autonomy of the judiciary in determining the criteria for the appointment and promotion of judges but also highlights the importance of merit and competency in judicial appointments. The case, Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others, marks a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue about the balance between judicial independence and the procedural norms governing the promotion of judges within India’s legal system.
