Arbitrary to increase aggregate marks after exams: SC quashes Jharkhand HC's resolution on district judges' appointment

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said the task of setting cut-off marks has been vested in the High Court but this has to be done before the start of the examination.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said raising the aggregate marks after the examination is over is "arbitrary and impermissible", as it quashed the Jharkhand High Court's full court resolution fixing 50 per cent aggregate marks for selection to the post of district judges.

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said the task of setting cut-off marks has been vested in the High Court but this has to be done before the start of an examination.

The court also said the High Court administration cannot take aid of the rule to take a blanket decision for making departure from the selection criteria specified in the rules.

The bench said the court would continue to be guided by “no change in the rule midway” dictum, which has become an integral part of the service jurisprudence.

The court allowed writ petitions filed by Sushil Kumar Pandey and others by directing the High Court to make recommendation for those candidates who have been successful as per the merit or selection list, for filing up the subsisting notified vacancies, without applying the full court resolution that requires each candidate to get 50 per cent aggregate marks.

In the matter, the HC had on March 23, 2023 passed a resolution by the full court introducing 50 per cent marks in aggregate (combination of marks obtained in main examination and viva voce) as the qualifying criteria for being recommended to the 22 posts of district judges in the recruitment process initiated in 2022.

The High Court, on its part, said applying a higher aggregate mark is not barred under the rules or regulations. It also said a candidate acquired no vested legal right of being appointed to the post in question by being on the selection list.

The bench, however, observed the High Court administration had sought to deviate from the statutory rules guiding the selection process itself, and such departure is "impermissible".

"If precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of the recruitment rules without there being a finding on such candidate’s unsuitability, such an action would fail the Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary," the bench said.

The reason behind the full court resolution is that better candidates ought to be found but that is different from a candidate excluded from the appointment process being found to be unsuitable, the court pointed out.