LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the High Court’s authority to set eligibility criteria for promotions within the state’s higher judicial service, specifically the requirement of securing a minimum of 50% marks in both the written test and viva voce separately.
CASE TYPE: Service Law – Judicial Appointments
Case Name: Dr. Kavita Kamboj vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors
[Judgment Date]: 13 February 2024
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 192
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, and Manoj Misra, J.
Can a High Court independently set eligibility criteria for promoting judicial officers, or does it need the State Government’s approval? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges in Haryana. The core issue was whether the High Court could mandate a minimum of 50% marks in both the written test and viva voce separately for promotions. This judgment clarifies the balance of power between the High Court and the State Government in judicial appointments. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
Case Background
The case originated from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s recommendations for promoting thirteen in-service candidates as Additional District and Sessions Judges. These promotions were to be made from the post of Senior Civil Judges under the 65% promotional quota as per the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007. The High Court had introduced a new criterion requiring candidates to secure at least 50% marks individually in both the written test and the viva voce to be eligible for promotion. This was a change from the previous requirement of an aggregate of 50% in both.
The State Government rejected these recommendations, arguing that the High Court had not consulted them on this change in criteria. The State Government also stated that the High Court should have considered the seniority of other judicial officers who were not recommended for promotion. This led to a series of writ petitions being filed in the High Court by both the selected and the non-selected candidates. The High Court ultimately directed the State of Haryana to accept its recommendations, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 10 January 2007 | Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007 came into force. |
| 29 January 2013 | High Court resolved that 50% aggregate marks in written test and viva voce were required for promotion. |
| 11 November 2021 | Recruitment and Promotion Committee meeting proposed 50% marks individually in written test and viva voce for promotion. |
| 30 November 2021 | Full Court approved the Committee’s proposal of 50% marks individually in written test and viva voce for promotion. |
| 11 February 2022 | Two committees recommended changes in Rule 8 of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007. |
| 24 August 2022 | Process of filling vacancies for Additional District and Sessions Judges initiated. |
| 23 February 2023 | High Court recommended names of thirteen judicial officers for promotion. |
| 2 March 2023 | State Government sought clarification on the non-recommendation of certain senior judicial officers. |
| 22 March 2023 | High Court responded to State Government, stating recommendations were as per rules. |
| 29 March 2023 | Representation submitted to Chief Secretary of Haryana against the High Court’s recommendations. |
| 26 July 2023 | Union Ministry of Law and Justice opined that the modification of suitability criteria lacked consultation with the State Government. |
| 12 September 2023 | State Government decided not to accept the High Court’s recommendations. |
| 20 December 2023 | High Court disposed of petitions, directing the State of Haryana to accept its recommendations. |
| 13 February 2024 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana initially received writ petitions from candidates seeking a direction to the State Government to conclude the selection process and notify the appointments. Subsequently, other writ petitions were filed by unsuccessful candidates challenging the High Court’s resolution of 30 November 2021, which mandated the 50% cut-off in both written and viva voce. The High Court, in its judgment dated 20 December 2023, directed the State of Haryana to accept its recommendations made on 23 February 2023. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court in the present appeals.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007, specifically:
- Rule 6: This rule specifies the method of recruitment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, outlining the percentage of posts to be filled by promotion and direct recruitment. It states that 65% of the posts will be filled by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division)/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Additional Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of the principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
- Rule 8: This rule details the procedure for promotion, stating that the High Court may hold a written objective test of 75 marks and a viva voce of 25 marks to assess the legal knowledge and efficiency of candidates. It also requires consideration of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the preceding five years.
- Rule 9: This rule details the procedure for a limited competitive examination for promotion of members of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) as per Rule 6(b).
These rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the state to regulate the service conditions of its employees. The appointments are also governed by Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution which deal with the appointment of District Judges, appointment of persons other than District Judges to the Judicial Service and control over subordinate courts respectively.
Arguments
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants (Unsuccessful Candidates):
- The suitability of candidates should be judged by their track record as reflected in their ACRs, not just by a cut-off in the suitability test and viva voce.
- The Full Court resolution of 30 November 2021, which prescribed a minimum of 50% marks in both the suitability test and viva voce separately, is discriminatory against candidates seeking promotions in the 65% quota, as no such cut-off is prescribed for the 10% quota through limited competitive examination.
- No such cut-off is prescribed for candidates who seek direct recruitment as Additional District and Sessions Judges, further highlighting the discrimination.
- The imposition of a 50% cut-off in viva voce was not disclosed to the candidates until after the selection process.
- The candidates had a legitimate expectation that the earlier practice of an aggregate of 50% marks would continue.
- The absence of notice about the change in eligibility criteria violates the norms of consistency and predictability.
- The Shetty Commission had stated that in matters of direct recruitment, it was not inclined to impose a minimum cut -off in the viva voce in order to obviate arbitrariness in the process.
Submissions on behalf of the State of Haryana:
- The criteria for selection of District Judges should be fixed in consultation with the State Government, as per Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution.
- There is an element of subjectivity and arbitrariness in laying down minimum marks for the interview process.
- The High Court should have consulted the State Government before modifying its resolution on the eligibility criteria.
Submissions on behalf of the High Court:
- Rule 8 provides the modalities for testing the merit and suitability of judicial officers for promotion.
- Where the Rules are silent, they can be supplemented by administrative instructions.
- The High Court has the administrative power to modify its resolutions regarding the appointment of District Judges.
- The three categories of appointments to the Higher Judicial Service are distinct and constitute valid classifications.
- The High Court was justified in imposing a minimum eligibility requirement of 50% in the written test and viva voce independently.
- No prejudice was caused to any candidate as the minimum eligibility cut-off was not disclosed prior to the interview.
- The High Court is the sole repository of power in matters of appointments to the District Judiciary.
- The consistent view of the Court has been that the requirement of minimum marks for interviews in the appointments of District Judges is necessary since the selection has to be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.
Submissions on behalf of the Candidates recommended for appointment:
- The Rules being silent, the High Court had the power to fill in the gap by the issuance of administrative directions.
- Since no amendment of the Rules was being brought about, there was no requirement of consultation with the State Government.
- The criterion which was fixed by the Resolution of the Full Court dated 29 January 2013 is not under challenge and, in fact, the relief which was sought before the High Court was for the restoration of the criteria under the Resolution. Consequently, where the same power has been used by the High Court to make a selection subsequently in 2021, such an alteration is beyond the purview of judicial review.
Submissions of Parties
| Party | Main Submissions |
|---|---|
| Unsuccessful Candidates |
|
| State of Haryana |
|
| High Court |
|
| Candidates recommended for appointment |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issues that the Court addressed were:
- Whether the High Court could independently set eligibility criteria for promotions within the state’s higher judicial service, specifically the requirement of securing a minimum of 50% marks in both the written test and viva voce separately.
- Whether the High Court’s decision to impose a minimum cut-off of 50% marks in both the written test and viva voce separately for promotions is discriminatory and arbitrary.
- Whether the High Court was required to consult with the State Government before modifying the eligibility criteria for promotions.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court could independently set eligibility criteria for promotions within the state’s higher judicial service, specifically the requirement of securing a minimum of 50% marks in both the written test and viva voce separately. | The Court held that the High Court has the power to set such criteria, especially where the rules are silent. |
| Whether the High Court’s decision to impose a minimum cut-off of 50% marks in both the written test and viva voce separately for promotions is discriminatory and arbitrary. | The Court found that the three modes of recruitment (promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, promotion based on merit through limited competitive exam, and direct recruitment) are distinct and the different criteria are justified. |
| Whether the High Court was required to consult with the State Government before modifying the eligibility criteria for promotions. | The Court held that the High Court is the sole authority in such matters and is not required to consult the State Government for administrative decisions. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
On the distinct nature of the three modes of recruitment:
- All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 – Supreme Court of India: This case laid the foundation for the three modes of recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service.
- All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2010) 15 SCC 170 – Supreme Court of India: This case reduced the quota of judicial officers from the limited competitive examination from 25 percent to 10 percent.
- Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401 – Supreme Court of India: This case highlighted the purpose of promotion through a limited competitive examination.
On the importance of the viva voce and the discretion of the High Court:
- Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized the importance of the interview test in assessing a candidate’s personality.
- Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, (2018) 14 SCC 129 – Supreme Court of India: This case upheld the prescription of minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce in judicial service examinations.
- K H Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the High Court can supplement the rules by prescribing benchmarks for written and oral tests.
On the power of the High Court and the interpretation of Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution:
- Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1967) 1 SCR 77 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized that the Governor’s power of appointment is conditioned by consultation with the High Court.
- State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand HCS, (1976) 2 SCC 977 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the High Court’s opinion will have a binding effect on the Governor according to the constitutional scheme.
- State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, (2000) 4 SCC 640 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the High Court has a pivotal role to play in the recruitments of judicial officers.
- State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 22 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized the importance of the control which is wielded by the High Courts over the District Judiciary.
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. State of Haryana, (1975) 1 SCC 843 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized the importance of the control which is wielded by the High Courts over the District Judiciary.
- High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. PP Singh, (2003) 4 SCC 239 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized the importance of the control which is wielded by the High Courts over the District Judiciary.
On the principle of merit-cum-seniority:
- B V Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu, (1998) 6 SCC 720 – Supreme Court of India: This case explains the principle of merit-cum-seniority.
- Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that consideration of merit along with seniority in the procedure of promotion is not violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
On the power of the executive to supplement the rules:
- Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that administrative instructions can supplement the rules where they are silent on any particular point.
- State of Gujarat v Akhilesh C Bhargav, (1987) 4 SCC 482 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that administrative instructions can supplement the rules where they are silent on any particular point.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam, (1977) 4 SCC 345 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that administrative instructions have a binding force provided they are subservient to the statutory provisions and have been issued to fill up the gaps between the statutory provisions.
On the doctrine of legitimate expectation:
- Sivanandan C T v High Court of Kerala, 2023 SCC Online SC 994 – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
On the issue of minimum cut-offs:
- P K Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 141 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that if the Rules were to specifically provide in a given case that the criterion for eligibility would be on the combined marks of both the written test and the viva voce, the matter would have been entirely different.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Unsuccessful Candidates | Suitability should be based on ACRs. | Rejected. The Court held that suitability is determined by the test and viva voce, along with ACRs. |
| Unsuccessful Candidates | 50% cut-off in both written and viva voce is discriminatory. | Rejected. The Court held that the three modes of recruitment are distinct and different criteria are justified. |
| Unsuccessful Candidates | No cut-off for direct recruits, hence discriminatory. | Rejected. The Court held that the three modes of recruitment are distinct and different criteria are justified. |
| Unsuccessful Candidates | Cut-off was not disclosed beforehand. | Rejected. The Court held that no prejudice was caused as candidates would not have prepared differently. |
| Unsuccessful Candidates | Legitimate expectation of old norms. | Rejected. The Court held that the Rules were silent and the High Court was within its power to change the criteria. |
| Unsuccessful Candidates | Shetty Commission had stated that in matters of direct recruitment, it was not inclined to impose a minimum cut -off in the viva voce in order to obviate arbitrariness in the process. | Rejected. The Court held that based on the discussion above, the three modes of recruitment have been reasonably classified and different requirements have been prescribed for each. |
| State of Haryana | Criteria should be fixed in consultation with the State Government. | Rejected. The Court held that the High Court is the sole authority in such matters. |
| State of Haryana | Minimum marks for interview are subjective and arbitrary. | Rejected. The Court held that the viva voce is essential to assess the overall personality of a candidate. |
| State of Haryana | High Court should have consulted the State Government. | Rejected. The Court held that the High Court is not required to consult the State Government for administrative decisions. |
| High Court | Rule 8 provides modalities for testing merit. | Accepted. The Court upheld the High Court’s interpretation of Rule 8. |
| High Court | Administrative instructions can supplement silent rules. | Accepted. The Court agreed that administrative instructions can fill gaps in the rules. |
| High Court | High Court has power to modify its resolutions. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court has the administrative power to modify its resolutions. |
| High Court | Three categories of appointments are distinct. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the three categories are distinct and different criteria are justified. |
| High Court | 50% cut-off is justified. | Accepted. The Court found the cut-off to be reasonable and not arbitrary. |
| High Court | No prejudice caused by non-disclosure. | Accepted. The Court held that candidates would not have prepared differently. |
| High Court | High Court is the sole repository of power. | Accepted. The Court upheld the High Court’s power in judicial appointments. |
| High Court | Minimum marks for interviews are necessary for merit-cum-seniority. | Accepted. The Court agreed that minimum marks are necessary for merit-cum-seniority. |
| Candidates recommended for appointment | High Court can fill gaps in rules with administrative directions. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the High Court can fill gaps in rules with administrative directions. |
| Candidates recommended for appointment | No need to consult State Government for administrative directions. | Accepted. The Court held that there was no need to consult the State Government. |
| Candidates recommended for appointment | Alteration is beyond judicial review. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court’s decision was within its administrative capacity and beyond the purview of judicial review. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to establish the three modes of recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service.
- All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2010) 15 SCC 170 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to show the evolution of the three modes of recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service.
- Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to highlight the purpose of promotion through a limited competitive examination.
- Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 – Supreme Court of India: The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of the interview test in assessing a candidate’s personality.
- Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, (2018) 14 SCC 129 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to support the prescription of minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce in judicial service examinations.
- K H Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to support the High Court’s power to supplement the rules by prescribing benchmarks for written and oral tests.
- Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1967) 1 SCR 77 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the Governor’s power of appointment is conditioned by consultation with the High Court.
- State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand HCS, (1976) 2 SCC 977 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to highlight that the High Court’s opinion will have a binding effect on the Governor according to the constitutional scheme.
- State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, (2000) 4 SCC 640 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the pivotal role of the High Court in the recruitments of judicial officers.
- State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 22 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of the control which is wielded by the High Courts over the District Judiciary.
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. State of Haryana, (1975) 1 SCC 843 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of the control which is wielded by the High Courts over the District Judiciary.
- High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. PP Singh, (2003) 4 SCC 239 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of the control which is wielded by the High Courts over the District Judiciary.
- B V Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu, (1998) 6 SCC 720 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to explain the principle of merit-cum-seniority.
- Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to highlight that consideration of merit along with seniority in the procedure of promotion is not violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to highlight that administrative instructions can supplement the rules where they are silent on any particular point.
- State of Gujarat v Akhilesh C Bhargav, (1987)4 SCC 482 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to highlight that administrative instructions can supplement the rules where they are silent on any particular point.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam, (1977) 4 SCC 345 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to highlight that administrative instructions have a binding force provided they are subservient to the statutory provisions and have been issued to fill up the gaps between the statutory provisions.
- Sivanandan C T v High Court of Kerala, 2023 SCC Online SC 994 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to discuss the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
- P K Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 141 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to highlight that if the Rules were to specifically provide in a given case that the criterion for eligibility would be on the combined marks of both the written test and the viva voce, the matter would have been entirely different.
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to impose a minimum of 50% marks in both the written test and viva voce separately. The Court emphasized the High Court’s authority in setting eligibility criteria for promotions within the judicial service and clarified that the High Court is not required to consult with the State Government for such administrative decisions. The Court held that the three modes of recruitment were distinct and there was no arbitrariness in the criteria fixed by the High Court.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals. The court upheld the High Court’s decision to set a minimum of 50% marks in both the written test and viva voce separately for promotions. The Court held that the High Court has the authority to set such criteria and is not required to consult with the State Government for administrative decisions. The Court also found that the three modes of recruitment are distinct and the different criteria for each are justified.
Impact
The Supreme Court’s judgment has significant implications for the judicial appointment process in India. The judgment reaffirms the High Court’s power in setting eligibility criteria for promotions within the judicial service. It clarifies that the High Court is not required to consult with the State Government for such administrative decisions, thereby reinforcing the independence of the judiciary. It also highlights the importance of the viva voce in assessing a candidate’s overall suitability for the post of a District Judge. This ruling ensures that the High Court has the necessary autonomy to maintain the quality of the judiciary and that merit-cum-seniority is the guiding principle in the appointments to the Higher Judicial Service.
Flowchart of the Judicial Appointment Process