Case Note & Summary
The case involved a challenge to the recruitment process for the Delhi Judicial Service, governed by the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970. The petitioners, who were candidates for the position of Subordinate Judges, contested the validity of the final list of selected candidates after the High Court added two marks to each candidate's written examination scores by way of moderation. The petitioners argued that this action was not permissible under the rules, which mandated specific qualifying marks for eligibility to appear for the viva voce test. The High Court contended that the moderation was necessary to ensure that deserving candidates were not excluded from consideration due to marginal score differences. The Supreme Court analyzed the rules governing the recruitment process, particularly focusing on the powers of the High Court and the Selection Committee. It concluded that the High Court had no authority to alter the qualifying marks through moderation, as this would effectively amend the rules without proper legislative authority. Furthermore, the court found that the Selection Committee's imposition of a new minimum aggregate mark requirement of 600 marks was also invalid, as it contradicted the established criteria set forth in the rules. The court quashed the final list prepared by the Selection Committee and directed the preparation of a new list based solely on the original qualifying marks, without the moderated scores. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to established rules in public recruitment processes to maintain fairness and integrity.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Recruitment - Validity of Moderation Marks - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 234; Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, Rules 16, 17, 18 - The High Court's decision to add two marks to each candidate's written examination score was held invalid as it violated the prescribed eligibility criteria and undermined the merit-based selection process. The court emphasized that such moderation could not amend the established rules without proper authority. Held that the list prepared with moderated marks was liable to be struck down (Paras 382 D, 381 B-C). B) Constitutional Law - Minimum Marks Requirement - Selection Committee's Authority - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 234; Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, Rules 17, 18 - The court ruled that the Selection Committee lacked the authority to impose a new minimum aggregate mark requirement for candidates, as this constituted an amendment to the existing rules. The exclusion of candidates based on this arbitrary criterion was deemed illegal (Paras 383 B-C, 382 G).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court had the power to add marks by way of moderation and whether it could eliminate candidates based on a new minimum aggregate requirement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the final list prepared by the Selection Committee and directed the preparation of a new list based solely on the original qualifying marks, without the moderated scores.
Law Points
- Judicial recruitment
- moderation of marks
- eligibility criteria
- equality in selection
- powers of High Court
- validity of selection committee decisions
