Text

Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors.

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. v. High Court
of Judicature at Patna & Ors., the petitioners, comprising 46 unsuccessful
candidates, challenged the 2015 recruitment process for District Judges
(Direct from Bar) in Bihar. The Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951,
as amended in 2013, mandated a selection process involving a screening
test, a main written examination (250 marks), and an interview (50
marks). To qualify, candidates were required to secure at least 60% (150
out of 250) in the written exam and 20% (10 out of 50) in the interview.
Further amendments in 2014 introduced a proviso allowing the High
Court to relax aggregate qualifying marks, but not below 50%. In
response to Advertisement No. 1/2015, approximately 6,771 candidates
appeared for the preliminary exam on March 22, 2015. Candidates
scoring 176 marks or more advanced to the main exam, held on July 12,
2015. However, discrepancies during the evaluation process led to fresh
tabulation. The petitioners contended that the requirement of securing
minimum marks in the interview was arbitrary and contravened the
principles established in the All India Judges Association v. Union of India
(2002) case, arguing that it disproportionately affected candidates who
performed well in the written examination but fell short in the interview.

ISSUES
1.Whether prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the viva
voce (interview) stage of the District Judge recruitment process in Bihar
was arbitrary and unconstitutional?
2. Does the requirement of minimum marks in the interview violate
Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution by disproportionately
affecting candidates who performed well in the written examination?
3. Whether the selection criteria contradict the principles
established in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002), which
emphasized reducing the weightage of interviews in judicial
appointments?
4. Did the Bihar High Court have the authority to set and enforce
minimum qualifying marks for the interview stage under the Bihar
Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 (as amended in 2013 and 2014)?
5. Whether the process of evaluation and tabulation of marks in the
2015 recruitment process was conducted fairly and in accordance with
the rules?

ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants, who were unsuccessful candidates in the 2015
recruitment process for District Judges (Direct from Bar) in Bihar, argued
that the requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in the viva
voce (interview) was arbitrary and unconstitutional. They contended that
the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 (as amended in 2013 and
2014), did not mandate a fixed minimum score in the interview, and
therefore, the High Court’s imposition of such a criterion was beyond its
authority. They relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in All India
Judges Association v. Union of India (2002), which emphasized
minimizing the weightage of interviews in judicial appointments to
ensure fair and merit-based selection. The appellants argued that they
had performed well in the written examination but were unfairly
disqualified due to the subjective nature of the interview process, which
disproportionately affected candidates from diverse backgrounds.
Furthermore, they contended that the lack of transparency in the
tabulation and evaluation process, including alleged irregularities in
marking, violated the principles of natural justice and denied them equal
opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.


Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, including the High Court of Judicature at Patna,
defended the recruitment process by arguing that the prescription of
minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce was well within the
discretionary powers of the High Court under the Bihar Superior Judicial
Service Rules, 1951. They contended that judicial appointments required
not only academic excellence but also practical skills, temperament, and
communication abilities, which could only be assessed in an interview.
The respondents relied on the 2014 amendment to the Rules, which
allowed the High Court to relax qualifying marks, but not below 50% in
aggregate, reinforcing that the selection criteria had a valid legal basis.
Additionally, they argued that judicial precedent supported the
importance of viva voce in assessing a candidate’s suitability, citing
previous Supreme Court judgments that upheld interview-based
evaluation in competitive selections. Regarding alleged irregularities in
evaluation, the respondents stated that the selection process was
conducted fairly, and re-evaluation was carried out where necessary to
rectify tabulation errors. They emphasized that judicial independence
allowed the High Court to set its recruitment criteria, and courts should
not interfere unless there was gross arbitrariness or violation of
fundamental rights.


HELD BY COURT
In the case of Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. v. High Court of
Judicature at Patna & Ors., the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on
May 6, 2024, addressing the constitutionality of prescribing minimum
qualifying marks in the viva voce (interview) stage of the selection
process for District Judges in Bihar. The petitioners, unsuccessful
candidates in the 2015 recruitment process, contended that the
requirement of securing minimum marks in the interview was arbitrary
and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Indian Constitution. They argued that this criterion disproportionately
affected candidates who performed well in the written examination but
fell short in the interview, and that it contradicted the principles
established in the All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002)
case, which emphasized minimizing the weightage of interviews in
judicial appointments. The respondents, including the High Court of
Judicature at Patna, defended the recruitment process by asserting that
prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce was within the
discretionary powers of the High Court under the Bihar Superior Judicial
Service Rules, 1951. They emphasized that judicial appointments require
not only academic excellence but also practical skills, temperament, and
communication abilities, which can be effectively assessed during the
interview stage. After reviewing the arguments, the Supreme Court
upheld the constitutionality of the selection criteria, including the
stipulation of minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce. The Court
observed that such provisions are designed to ensure that candidates
possess the necessary qualities for judicial positions, beyond academic
knowledge. The judgment emphasized that prescribing minimum marks
for interviews does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, nor
does it contradict the recommendations of the Shetty Commission as
interpreted in the All India Judges Association (2002) case. Consequently,
the Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Abhimeet Sinha and
others, thereby upholding the validity of the selection process conducted
by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.

Detail Information

Title

Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors.

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

Writ Petition (C) No. 251 of 201

Matter(s)

-

Councels

For the Petitioners:- Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Advocate, Ms. Padma Priya, Advocate , Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, Advocate-on-Record For the Respondents:- Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate, representing the High Court of Patna and Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate, representing the High Court of Gujarat

Statement of Responsibility

Shreya Shukla, United University, Faculty of Law, Prayagraj

See Also

File Attachment

Comments