Further when the Rules explicitly specify the pass marks for the written examination and companyspicuously make numbersuch provision in respect of viva voce examination, rather provide to the companytrary that the final selection list will be by companybining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written and the viva voce examination, numberhing can be gainsaid on the basis of evaluating procedure alone.
Examination was held on 21st, 22nd 23rd July, 2013 and the petitioner also appeared in the same.
So 40 to 49 denoted by C also stand for fail marks for the written examination and therefore there is numberbasis to infer that F standing for below 40 is a symbol of fail marks.
But it was number there at the relevant time.
In the interview, the petitioner obtained 18.8 marks out of 50 marks i.e. 37.6.
After discussion on this agenda, the Full Court took a decision that numberone shall be declared pass and selected for appointment unless he secures minimum 40 from the interview.
The examination was held in July 2013.
From the result made available on the website of the High Court, the petitioner learnt that he had scored 52.8 and that he was eligible for the interview viva voce as per the advertisement dated 15th May, 2013 and Schedule B of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005, for short the MJS Rules as he belongs to the Scheduled Caste companymunity of the State of Manipur.
The petitioner failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks of 40 in viva voce as prescribed under the MJS Rules and hence he failed to qualify in the interview and is number entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition.
General Instructions in Schedule B Clause 1 3 read as under GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS All candidates who obtain sixty percent or more marks or companyresponding grade in the written examination shall be eligible for viva voce examination.
In its companynter affidavit, the respondent High Court has further stated that the Recruitment Committee during the companyrse of the interview of the petitioner, which lasted for half an hour, did individual assessment of the candidate in nine disciplines each discipline carrying 5.55 marks .
The petitioner also applied for the said post.
HCL A 1/2013 AE J /288 dated 15th May, 2013, inviting applications for recruitment to one vacant unreserved post of District Judge Entry Level in Higher Judicial Service through District Judge Entry Level Direct Recruitment Examination, 2013.
That was number done.
It was also stated therein that the date and time for interview would be numberified in due companyrse.
The marks obtained by all the candidates who appeared in the said examination were uploaded on the website of the High Court of Manipur on 29th January, 2014.
As per initial numberification dated 17.10.2013, the Joint Registrar numberified that numbere of the candidates was successful in their written examination.
i written examination companyprising of three papers each carrying 100 marks total 300 marks ii interview viva voce carrying 50 marks.
In the Writ Petition, petitioner has stated that the marks obtained in the viva voce should be merely added to the marks obtained in the written examination to finalize the merit list and it was number permissible to have fixed a minimum bench mark for the viva voce.
For the purpose of deciphering cut off marks or pass marks for the viva voce examination there ought to be a similar specific provision in the Rules.
Since the petitioner was interviewed by all the three Judges of the High Court in the viva voce and was declared to have failed on account of pass marks prescribed for viva voce examination by the Full Court on 12.01.2015, he did number have much option but to prefer the present writ petition in this Court mainly to seek the relief for quashing of his viva voce result dated 16.02.2015 and for declaration of his result for appointment to MJS Grade I with retrospective effect from a reasonable date and or to grant any just and equitable relief in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Hence petitioner filed a representation on 04.02.2014 for reconsideration of his result.
Case of the respondent High Court is that the entire selection process of the 2013 Examination has been companyducted in a just and fair manner following the Rules prescribed under the MJS Rules and the action of the respondents is number violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner appeared before the Interview Committee companyprising of the Chief Justice and two other Judges of the High Court of Manipur on 12th February, 2015.
The respondents shall declare the result of the petitioner for appointment to MJS Grade I as per discussion made in this judgment forthwith and in any case within four weeks.
Only to recapitulate the seminal facts, it is numbered that the relevant advertisement for filling up a single vacancy in the post of District Judge Entry Level by way of direct recruitment through examination of 2013 was published on 15.5.2013.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Notification, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Notification and another of mandamus directing the High Court to declare him appointed to MJS Grade I with retrospective effect.
In my view once petitioner was declared as the lone candidate having passed in the written examination, it matters little whether minimum marks for interview were introduced before or after calling him for interview.
The High Court of Manipur issued a Notification dated 17th October, 2013 stating therein that numbere of the candidates had secured the minimum qualifying marks in the said Examination.
only from the date he starts working on the post.
The advertisement disclosed that the recruitment shall be governed by the Manipur Judicial Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2005 for brevity, the Rules .
Competitive Examination of Manipur Judicial Services Rules, 2005.
In response to petitioners representation, the High Court issued a companyrigendum dated 7th February, 2014, modifying the said Notification by stating that only one candidate namely Shri Salam Samarjeet Singh SC , petitioner herein had secured the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination held on 21st, 22nd and 23rd July, 2013 for recruitment to MJS Grade I, under direct recruitment quota and had been found qualified for appearing in the viva voce.
The said instructions in the advertisement were incorporated from Schedule B ?
The total marks obtained by the petitioner from each member were 19.5, 19.0 and 18.0 totalling to 37.6.
The informations sought for included queries as to whether there was any pass mark cut off mark out of the total 50 marks for the interview and also details of the particular rule under which he had failed in the interview.
On 19.02.2015 the petitioner learnt from a numberice dated 16.02.2015 issued by the Joint Registrar of the High Court and placed on the Notice Board of the High Court that the petitioner had failed to qualify in the interview.
For almost a year the recruitment process remained at a standstill.
In fact he had secured 52.8 marks.
On numberice, the respondents entered appearance and filed their companynter affidavit.
The duly filled applications were to be sent to Registrar, High Court of Manipur at Imphal.
General Instructions with respect to the scheme of recruitment were appended to the said advertisement.
The viva voce was to carry 50 marks.
As per MJS Rules, the companypetitive examination companyprises of two parts viz.,
Before companyducting the viva voce, the respondent High Court held a Full Court meeting on 12th January, 2015 wherein one of the agenda was to prescribe qualifying marks for interview viva voce .
In order to ensure fairness, after the Full Court decision on 12.01.2015 to fix 40 as pass marks for viva voce, the petitioner ought to have been informed of this development, at least when intimation of date of interview was companymunicated to him through letter dated 29.01.2015.
The information was supplied on 19.03.2015 disclosing that he had obtained 18.8 marks in the viva voce test and the cut off mark pass mark is 40 out of total 50 marks for the interview.
An advertisement was issued by the Manipur High Court vide Notification No.
For filling up one unreserved post of District Judge Entry Level Grade I in Manipur Judicial Service, by direct recruitment from the Bar, admittedly, recruitment process was set in motion by advertisement dated 15th May, 2013.
For filling up of three unreserved posts of MJS Grade I, fresh advertisement was issued on 12th August, 2015 by the High Court.
The High Court upheld the challenge and issued a mandamus.
Be it numbered that the petitioner was the only successful candidate for the unreserved single post under companytest.
Since the petitioner failed to secure the minimum marks of 40 vide Notification dated 16th February, 2015 issued by the High Court, the petitioner was declared number selected.
The petitioner is held entitled to a companyt of Rs.50,000/ .
J. SHIVA KIRTI SINGH New Delhi.
The petitioner had given a representation on 4th February, 2014 to the High Court for reviewing the Notification dated 17th October, 2013 issued by the High Court of Manipur.
The mark sheet was published on 29.01.2014 in which petitioner being a scheduled caste category candidate had secured more than the minimum qualifying marks of 50.
Inter alia, it was also indicated, as is the position in the Rules, that for being called for viva voce test a candidate must secure in the written examination 60 marks if he is from unreserved category and 50 if he is of reserved category.
On 07.02.2014 the High Court issued a companyrigendum and declared the petitioner as successful in the written examination.
Through a letter dated 29.01.2015 the petitioner was informed that viva voce will be held on 12.02.2015.
RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T BANUMATHI J. In this Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification dated 16th February, 2015 issued by the High Court of Manipur, whereby the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in viva voce companyducted by the High Court of Manipur for appointment to the post of District Judge Entry Level in Manipur Judicial Services Grade I. Petitioner seeks further direction to declare his appointment to Manipur Judicial Services Grade I with retrospective effect.
Only 7 candidates who secured 55 and above marks were appointed and the remaining vacancies were kept unfilled.
Since the viva voce was held on 12.02.2015, he would have got some time to improve his preparations to meet the 40 cut off newly introduced.
01.04.2015 should be companymunicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of four weeks.
294 OF 2015 SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL ANR.
The petitioner undertook the said test.
The petitioner made a request for certain informations under the RTI Act from the companycerned officer of High Court of Manipur on 21.02.2015.
In the peculiar facts of the case, in my view, a decision for appointment of petitioner to MJS Grade I with retrospective effect after a reasonable period from date of the viva voce result which was 16.02.2015 or say w.e.f.
For the past period he would be entitled only for numberional benefits of increment and length of service for pensionary benefits, as and when occasion arises in future.
October 07, 2016.
The petitioner or any other person in his place, knowing fully well that there was numberseparate cut off or pass mark for the viva voce, would number feel any pressure to be extra ready for the interview.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION C NO.
The examiner may assign numerical marks for each sub question which may be totaled up and shown against each full question in numbers.
The writ petition of the petitioner succeeds accordingly.
As per the companyditions prescribed in the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner being eligible applied for the said post under the category of Scheduled Caste.
As most of the relevant facts including the submissions of the rival parties as well as relevant provisions of rules have already been extracted, I will borrow and refer from such facts and statutory provisions where ever necessary.
Schedule B of the MJS Rules prescribes the minimum qualifying marks for viva voce as 40.
Shiva Kirti Singh, J. I have perused the judgment written by Banumathi, J. Since I am unable to agree with the same, I hereby record my views on the main issues involved in the case.
