Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: minimum marks in the interview in Mahesh Kumar Singh And Another vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 29 August, 2022Matching Fragments
The extract of the Shetty Commission's report, Appendix-1 titled as "Model Rules for Recruitment to District Court Service", appended as Annexure '21' to the writ petition, has been placed before us to argue that Rules 10 and 11 of the Model Rules prescribing for eligibility for candidates for the interview and the criteria of interview; respectively, do not prescribe minimum marks for interview. It was pointed out that Rule 12 of the Model Rules prescribing procedure to prepare the list of selected candidates, i.e. final select list provides that the select list shall be drawn on the basis of the aggregate of the percentage of the total marks secured in the qualifying examination as determined under Rule 10 and of the marks secured at the interview under Rule 11. The Rules framed by the High Court prescribing minimum qualifying marks of 40% for the interview for inclusion of a candidate in the final select list prepared on the aggregate of marks obtained in the written examination and the interview is, thus, contrary to the recommendations of the Shetty Commission accepted by the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association's case (supra).
It may further be noted that the decision of the Apex Court in Hemani Malhotra (supra) and Ramesh Kumar (supra) as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been considered by the Apex court therein and it was noted that the said decisions proceeded on the issue that prescription of minimum marks in the interview was not permissible after the written test was held.
Further on the view taken by the Hon'ble Justice R. Banumathi, (as she then was) about correctness of the decision of the Full Court in prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the viva-voce, a contrary opinion was noted by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, (as he then was) and the matter was referred for final adjudication before the appropriate Bench in view of difference of opinion. The dissenting view of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, however, was on the ground that change in the selection procedure by providing minimum marks for interview or viva-voce test in the midst of the selection process which has already been initiated amounted to changing the Rules of the game and hence impermissible. It is noted in the dissenting judgment that the rules and the instructions clearly demonstrate that there was no cut-off mark or pass mark for the viva-voce examination in the past and the Full Court by resolution provided for minimum 40% marks in the interview after the advertisement notification was issued and written examinations were held but before holding the interview. It was, thus, observed that the minimum marks for interview was introduced in the midst of the selection process.
In Taniya Malik (supra), however, prescription of minimum marks for interview in the Delhi Judicial Services Rules-2015 has been upheld with the observation that interview is the main fulcrum for judging the suitability of the candidates for appointment as District Judge (entry level) in the Higher Judiciary.
In Ramesh Kumar (supra), it was noted that the selection rules namely the Delhi High Court Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (as it then was) did not provide for minimum marks for interview. The Shetty Commission's report and the decision of the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association (supra) was then noted and it was observed that where statutory rules do not deal with the particular subject/issue, so far as appointment of the Judicial Officers is concerned, directions issued by the Apex Court would have binding effect.
17. From the above discussion, it can be discerned that the Courts have upheld the prescription of minimum passing marks in the interview/viva-voce examination in the recruitment for judicial services prescribed in the Recruitment Rules framed by the different High Courts. Much emphasis has been given to the interview as the best method of judging the overall personality, actual working knowledge, intelligence, communicating skills etc., which are essential for a Judicial Officer.
As regards the observations in Ramesh Kumar (supra) that the Shetty Commission's report had not prescribed for not having minimum marks for interview, the same was made in the facts of that case as the statutory rules namely Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (as it then was) did not provide for the requirement of securing minimum marks in interview.