Supreme Court clarifies absorption criteria for Ad-hoc Fast Track Court Judges: High Court of Hyderabad vs. P. Murali Mohana Reddy (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 48

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can the High Court set its own criteria for the absorption of ad-hoc Fast Track Court judges, or should it adhere to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court? This question was at the heart of a recent case where the High Court of Hyderabad’s decision to impose minimum qualifying marks in viva voce was challenged. The Supreme Court of India examined the selection process for the absorption of ad-hoc Fast Track Court judges into the regular cadre of Additional District Judges. The bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appointment of several ad-hoc Fast Track Court District Judges in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. These appointments were made on an ad-hoc basis following the establishment of Fast Track Courts as per the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of *Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors.*. The respondents, along with other similarly situated individuals, sought permanent absorption into the regular cadre of District and Sessions Judges. The Supreme Court, in *Brij Mohan Lal’s* case, directed states to conduct written examinations for these ad-hoc judges to determine their suitability for absorption. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh conducted the examination and interviews, but some candidates, including the respondents, were not selected for absorption. This led to the respondents filing writ petitions challenging the High Court’s decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents, who were not selected for absorption, challenged the High Court’s decision through writ petitions. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad allowed the writ petitions, stating that the decision of the Selection Committee to disqualify the petitioners for not securing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce or aggregate marks was illegal and arbitrary. The High Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners, as they had qualified in the written test and had taken the viva voce test. The High Court held that the selection committee should not have adopted the norm of securing a minimum qualifying mark in the viva voce test or for that matter, minimum aggregate qualifying marks.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case includes the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2007 (referred to as ‘the Rules’) and the directions given by the Supreme Court in *Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors.*. Rule 6 of the Rules specifies the methodology for conducting examinations for the appointment of District Judges. It states that the High Court shall notify the number of vacancies, eligibility criteria, syllabus, marks for written examination, qualifying marks, marks for viva voce, and the minimum to be secured therein. However, the Rules do not explicitly stipulate minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce. The Supreme Court in *Brij Mohan Lal’s* case, directed that the written examination should be for 150 marks, the interview for 100 marks, and that the qualifying marks shall be 40% aggregate for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OBC candidates. The Court also stated that the examination and interview should be held in accordance with the relevant rules enacted by the states for direct appointment to Higher Judicial Services.

Relevant portion of Rule 6 of the Rules:

“6. Methodology for conducting examination: (1) The High Court from time to time shall notify the number of vacancies for the category of District Judges to be appointed by direct recruitment indicating inter alia, the eligibility criteria, the syllabus, the number of marks allotted for written examination, the qualifying mark to be secured by a candidate, the number of marks allotted for the viva voce and the minimum to be secured therein by the candidate.
Provided that owing to the contingency it shall be open to the High Court to conduct a screening test which shall be objective type before conducting the written examination followed up by viva voce after duly notifying the same.
(2) While the written examination is meant to test the academic knowledge of the candidate, the viva voce is to test his communication skills; his tact; ability to defuse the situations to control the examination of witnesses and also lengthy irrelevant arguments and the like; and his general knowledge.
(3) ..
(4) The written examination shall invariably carry 80 marks limiting the viva voce to the remaining 20 marks.
Provided that the candidate shall secure a minimum qualifying mark of 40% for O.C. category, 35% for B.C. category; and 30% for S.C. and S.T. category in the written examination. (as amended by G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 16th November, 2011)
(5) ..
(6) ..
(7) ..
(8) ..
(9) ..
(10) ..”

Arguments

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that they had qualified the written examination by securing the minimum qualifying marks as per the advertisement and the Rules.
• They contended that neither the advertisement nor the Rules stipulated minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test.
• They argued that the High Court unilaterally imposed the requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce and aggregate marks, which was not mentioned in the advertisement or the Rules.
• The respondents relied on the judgments in *Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India & Ors.*, *A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & Anr.*, *K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.*, *State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar*, and *Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors.* to support their claim that the selection process should adhere to the norms published in the advertisement and the Rules.
• They submitted that they had a vested right to be considered based on the advertisement and the Rules.

Appellant’s (High Court) Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in *Brij Mohan Lal’s* case.
• The High Court argued that it was justified in setting minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce and aggregate marks.
• The High Court maintained that the selection process was fair and transparent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in setting minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test and aggregate marks for absorption of ad-hoc Fast Track Court judges, when neither the advertisement nor the Rules stipulated such requirements, and whether it was in consonance with the modalities stipulated by this Court in *Brij Mohan Lal’s* case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• *Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors.* (2012) 6 SCC 502 – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the modalities for absorption of ad-hoc Fast Track Court judges.
• *Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India & Ors.* (1985) 3 SCC 721 – Supreme Court of India: Cited by the High Court to support the view that the selection process should adhere to the norms published in the advertisement and the Rules.
• *A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & Anr.* (1983) 3 SCC 33 – Supreme Court of India: Cited by the High Court to support the view that the selection process should adhere to the norms published in the advertisement and the Rules.
• *K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.* (2008) 3 SCC 512 – Supreme Court of India: Cited by the High Court to support the view that the selection process should adhere to the norms published in the advertisement and the Rules.
• *State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar* (2010) 13 SCC 467 – Supreme Court of India: Cited by the High Court to support the view that the selection process should adhere to the norms published in the advertisement and the Rules.
• *Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors.* (2013) 7 SCC 737 – Supreme Court of India: Cited by the High Court to support the view that the selection process should adhere to the norms published in the advertisement and the Rules.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Andhra Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2007, Rule 6: This rule specifies the methodology for conducting examinations for the appointment of District Judges.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court followed the directions given in *Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors.* [ (2012) 6 SCC 502], clarifying that while minimum qualifying marks in viva voce were not required, aggregate qualifying marks were necessary.
• The Supreme Court noted the High Court’s reliance on *Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India & Ors.* [(1985) 3 SCC 721], *A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & Anr.* [(1983) 3 SCC 33], *K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.* [(2008) 3 SCC 512], *State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar* [(2010) 13 SCC 467] and *Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors.* [(2013) 7 SCC 737], which supported the principle that selection processes should adhere to the norms published in the advertisement and the rules.
• The Court analyzed Andhra Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2007, Rule 6, noting that it did not stipulate minimum qualifying marks for the interview.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules and guidelines set for the selection process. The Court noted that the High Court had deviated from the established norms by imposing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce, which was not prescribed in the advertisement or the Rules. The Court also considered the fact that the respondents had served as ad-hoc judges for a significant number of years and deserved equitable treatment. The judgment reflects a balance between the need to maintain standards in judicial appointments and the need to ensure fairness to those who have served the judiciary.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The High Court erred in imposing minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test, as this was not stipulated in the advertisement or the Rules.
• The judgment in *Brij Mohan Lal’s* case did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce but did require aggregate qualifying marks.
• The Court considered the long years of service put in by the ad-hoc judges and the need for equitable treatment.
• The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide equitable relief to the candidates.

The Supreme Court stated: “A conjoint reading of sub-para (c) and (f) of the methodology stipulated above would clearly bring out the following factors: (a) Written examination was to be for 150 marks and interview for 100 marks. (b) Such written examination and interview was to be held in accordance with relevant Rules enacted by the State for direct appointment to High Judicial Services. (c) Each candidate was required to qualify the written examination. (d) No qualifying marks for viva voce. (e) At the same time, candidates were supposed to obtain ‘consolidated percentage as afore-indicated’, which means 40% aggregate and 35% for SC/ST/OBC candidates. Such consolidate percentage means 40% and 35% respectively out of 250 marks.”

The Supreme Court further noted: “We are, therefore, of the opinion that even the judgment in Brij Mohan Lal’s case does not lay down minimum qualifying marks for viva voce. It, however, prescribes qualifying marks in aggregate i.e. both for written examination and interview combined.”

The Supreme Court also stated: “In such circumstances, it would be more appropriate to give them one more chance to appear in the written examination and viva voce, which should be held by the High Court in accordance with the mandate in Brij Mohan Lal’s case. This direction, therefore, is given having in mind the aforesaid equitable considerations, and in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.”

Key Takeaways

• Minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce cannot be imposed if not specified in the advertisement or the relevant rules.
• Aggregate qualifying marks, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in *Brij Mohan Lal’s* case, must be considered for absorption.
• High Courts must adhere to the norms published in the advertisement and the rules for selection processes.
• Equitable considerations and the service of ad-hoc judges should be taken into account.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to:

• Regularize the services of two candidates, Sunitha Busireddy and S. Sarada Devi, whose aggregate marks were rounded off to the qualifying marks.
• Give one more chance to the other two candidates, G. Bhuvaneswari Raju and P. Muralimohana Reddy, to appear in the written examination and viva voce, which should be held within six months.
• Allow these two candidates to continue in service during this period.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for the absorption of ad-hoc Fast Track Court judges, minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce cannot be imposed if not specified in the advertisement or the relevant rules. However, aggregate qualifying marks, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in *Brij Mohan Lal’s* case, must be considered. This judgment clarifies the importance of adhering to the rules and guidelines set for selection processes and ensures equitable treatment for ad-hoc judges. The judgment reinforces the principle that selection processes must adhere to the norms published in the advertisement and the rules. It also highlights the importance of considering the service of ad-hoc judges while determining their suitability for absorption.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *High Court of Hyderabad vs. P. Murali Mohana Reddy* clarifies the criteria for the absorption of ad-hoc Fast Track Court judges. The Court held that minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce cannot be imposed if not specified in the advertisement or the relevant rules. However, aggregate qualifying marks, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in *Brij Mohan Lal’s* case, must be considered. The Court directed the High Court to regularize the services of two candidates and give another chance to the other two, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment and adherence to established norms. This judgment provides clarity on the selection process and ensures that the principles of fairness and transparency are upheld.