2017 (11) TMI 2039 - SC - Indian Laws

Selection of District Sessions Judges in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service in the year 2015 - minimum cut-of marks for the interview introduced - main contention is that the Rules of the game could not have been changed after the game is played and the result of the game is known to the selectors - HELD THAT - The decision in K MANJUSREE VERSUS STATE OF AP ANR. 2008 (2) TMI 820 - SUPREME COURT squarely applies to the facts of this case. In Manjusree 75 marks were allotted for the written examination and 25 marks for the interview. The aggregate governed the merit. However the written examination was conducted for 100 marks. When the Full Court noticed this a sub-committee was appointed to make the arithmetical correction to scale down the marks in the written examination to 75 instead of 100. The sub-committee did two things - (1) it made the arithmetical correction (2) it introduced the same cut-of percentage for the interview as in the written examination and thus revised the merit list which was approved by the Full Court. In the process a few candidates were removed from the original merit list including Manjusree - A Bench of three Judges of this Court held that introduction of the requirement of the minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed would amount to changing the Rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible . The Bench specifically noted that the Resolution of the Full Court to not specifically stipulate minimum marks for viva-voce was still in force. Yet when the sub-committee introduced the change the same was approved by the Full Court. In Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. 2013 (3) TMI 768 - SUPREME COURT has however specifically doubted the correctness of Manjusree (supra) on the point whether changing the Rules of the game after the game was played is clearly impermissible and has made a Reference to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. It is only appropriate to refer this matter also to the larger bench to be heard along with Tej Prakash.

Summary

Issues:
Selection process for District & Sessions Judges in Kerala Higher Judicial Service in 2015, Changes in selection criteria after completion of the selection process, Applicability of previous judgments on changing selection rules after completion of the process.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the selection process for District & Sessions Judges in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service in 2015. The selection was to be conducted through a written examination and viva-voce, with specific qualifying marks for different categories of candidates. The main issue arises from the changes made to the selection criteria after the completion of the process.

2. The Resolution of the Full Court dated 13.12.2012 stated that there should be no minimum cut-off marks for the interview, and the final merit list was to be prepared based on the total marks obtained in the written examination and viva-voce. However, after the viva-voce, the Administrative Committee introduced a minimum percentage of marks for the viva-voce, which was not part of the original selection criteria. This change led to the drawing up of a new merit list and subsequent appointments, which are now being challenged in the present cases.

3. The main contention raised is that changing the rules of the selection process after the completion of the process and knowing the results is not permissible. This argument is supported by the decision in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512, where it was held that altering the selection criteria post completion of the process is impermissible as it changes the rules of the game after it has been played.

4. The judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 540 has raised doubts on the correctness of the decision in Manjusree regarding changing the rules after the game is played. Due to this difference of opinion, the matter has been referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Similarly, the case Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal and Anr. (2016) 10 SCC 484, dealing with a similar issue, has also been referred to a three Judge Bench for resolution.

5. In light of the conflicting judgments and the need for a clear pronouncement on the issue of changing selection rules post completion of the process, the Supreme Court has ordered the present matter to be referred to a larger bench for a comprehensive hearing along with the related cases. This decision aims to resolve the uncertainty and provide clarity on the permissible extent of altering selection criteria after the completion of the selection process.