Madhya Pradesh High CourtNiraj Kumar vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2012Author:Rajendra MenonBench:Rajendra MenonHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                                 JABALPUR
                            W.P. No.7110/10


Niraj Kumar and others            ..       ..       Petitioners
         Vs./-
High Court of M.P.
                                ..         ..       Respondent

                                     ------------
For the Petitioner          : Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal,
                              with Shri Piyush Bhatnagar,
                              Advocate

For the Respondent      : Shri V.S. Shroti,
                          Senior Advocate with Shri
                          Ashish Shroti, Advocate
                     ===============
Present:
     HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON
     AND HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                    ORDER(13.12.2012)

     Per Alok Aradhe, J. -In this writ petition, the petitioners inter-alia

have challenged Sub-Clause (iv), (v) and (vi) of Clause

8 of the advertisement dated 4.3.2010 in so far as it

provides for fixation of minimum marks in the written

examination and interview for recruitment to the post

of District Judge (Entry Level).2.          The facts necessary for adjudication of the

controversy involved in the writ petition briefly stated

are that the High Court issued an advertisement dated

4.2.2010 inviting applications for filling up 20 posts in

the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service as District2Judge (Entry Level).     The preliminary examination was

scheduled to be held on 4.7.2010 where as the main

examination     was     to    be    held       on    5.9.2010.      The

candidates      who     qualified         in    the     preliminary

examination,    were    entitled     to    appear     in     the   main

examination.     The written examination comprised of

two papers each carrying maximum of 100 marks. Such

candidates who secured minimum marks in each of the

two papers in the written examination were eligible to

be called for interview.           In the interview, 50 marks

were prescribed and the candidates were required to

secure minimum of 20 marks.            A Committee consisting

of three Judges was constituted to monitor and oversee

the directions of the Supreme Court issued vide order

dated 4.1.2007 in Civil Appeal No.1867/2006 (in the

case   of    Malik    Mazhar       Sultan      and    another       Vs.

U.P.S.C. and others ).        Thereafter, the Committee in

its meeting held on 14.12.2007 took a decision to fix 20

marks as minimum marks out of 50 marks allocated for

the interview and the Committee further fixed 30 marks

and 20 marks as minimum marks in the first paper

second paper respectively of the written examination

for the reserved category candidates and 40% marks

and 25% marks as minimum marks in the first paper

and    the   second   paper    of   the    written     examination,

respectively    for    candidates      belonging        to     general

category.33.           Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the impugned clauses in the advertisement in so

far as they provide for fixation of minimum marks in

the   written    examination         and    interview   are     ex-facie

arbitrary and illegal.           It is further submitted that

fixation of 20 marks out of 50 marks in the interview is

arbitrary as no records of the interview are maintained

and   therefore      it    confers    unbridled      and   unfettered

discretion    on     the    interviewing       authority   to    award

marks for the interview.In support of his submissions,

learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance

on the     decision of the Supreme Court inHemani

Malhotra Vs. HighCourt ofDelhi Vs. HighCourt of

Delhi, A.I.R. 2008 SC 2103.4.           On the other hand, learned senior counsel for

the respondent submitted that Rule 5 of M.P. Higher

Judicial   Services        (Recruitment        and    Conditions      of

Service) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the

'Rules') provides that 25 percent of the posts shall be

filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible

Advocates on the basis of the written test and viva voce

conducted by the High Court.                 Thereafter, the Rules

were amended vide notification dated 8.6.2005 wherein

the sub-rule in Rule 7 was inserted which provides the

procedure       of   selection   for       direct   recruitment     and

promotion shall be such, as may be specified by the

High Court from time to time.               It is further submitted4that   in    view   of    sub-rule       inserted    in    Rule   7    vide

notification      dated     8.6.2005,         the   High    Court      was

empowered to lay down norms for selection to the post

of District Judge (Entry Level).              It is further submitted

that since the selection is for the post of District Judge

(Entry Level), therefore, the effort of the High Court

was to select the best suitable candidate for the post.

It is further urged that in view the aforesaid aspect of

the    matter,    the    fixation       of   minimum      marks   in   the

written test in each of the two papers as well as the

interview cannot be said to be either arbitrary or

irrational.5.           We      have      considered            the     respective

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

In view of sub-rule inserted in Rule 7 vide notification

dated 8.6.2005, it was open to the High Court to lay

down the norms for selection to the post of District

Judge (Entry Level).         The High Court has evolved the

procedure for selection of the candidates for the posts

in question with a view to choose the best available

talent.     The mark of a candidate and his suitability are

always assessed with reference to his performance at

the examination.          The prescription of minimum marks

in an interview has been held to be bad in a case where

prescription of such minimum marks in the interview

tends to become the determining factor in the process

of selection.       See:Ashok Kumar Yadav and others5Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 454

and Mehmood Alam Tariq and others Vs. State of

Rajasthan and others , AIR 1988 SC 145.                 In the

instant case, the written examination is of 200 marks in

which a candidate is required to secure 40% and 25%

marks as minimum qualifying marks in first and second

paper of the written examination, respectively. In the

interview, out of 50% marks, a candidate is required to

secure minimum of 20% marks.           Thus, the prescription

of the minimum marks in the interview cannot be said

to be the determining factor in the process of selection

of the candidate.     The prescription of minimum marks

for the written examination or for the oral examination

cannot in any manner said to be irrelevant or is not

having any nexus to the object sought to be achieved.See:K.H.   Siraj   Vs.    HighCourt    of   Kerala    and

others , (2006) 6 SCC 395.          The minimum marks have

been prescribed to get the best available talent.            For

the    aforementioned       reasons,    the   prescription    of

minimum marks in the facts of the case cannot be said

to be arbitrary or irrational.It is also pertinent to

mention here that the Supreme Court in the case ofHimani Malhotra(supra), relied on by learned counsel

for the petitioners itself has held that the authority

making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by

rules the minimum marks both for written examination

as well as for viva voce. Therefore, the decision relied

on by learned counsel for the petitioners is of no6assistance to the petitioners in the facts of the case.6.        For the aforementioned reasons, we do not

     find any merit in the writ petition.    The same fails and

     is hereby dismissed.(Rajendra Menon)                       (Alok Aradhe)
          Judge                                  Judge
a.