New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld rules prescribing minimum qualifying marks in oral examination as part of the selection criteria for appointment of judicial officers in Bihar and Gujarat.
Taking into account the concerns of judicial services, candidates and the difficult selection process for judges in the district judiciary, the apex court issued several directions, including that the high courts should be given recruitment with "clearly defined roles The procedure should inform the designated authority." Duties and responsibilities to deal with candidates' issues.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashan Kumar Mishra on petitions filed by various unsuccessful candidates of the District Judicial Services of Bihar and Gujarat. The petitions deal with the question "whether setting minimum marks for interview is a violation of the apex court's 2002 judgment in the All India Judges case"."Prescribing minimum qualifying marks for interview is acceptable and is not in violation of the All India Judges (2002), which accepted certain recommendations of the KJ Shetty Commission," the judgment said.
Writing a 59-page judgment for the bench, Justice Roy said the apex court's judgment cannot be treated as an officially pronounced judgment if it is done with minimum cut-off marks in the interview section.
The judgment upheld the "selection process" of Biha and Gujarat and declared it legally valid.
It also rejected pleas challenging a section of Bihar Rules, 195 and Rule 8(3) of Gujarat Rules, 2005, which prescribed minimum marks for interview.
The recruitment is related to the selection of Judicial Officers of various ranks and respective selection cycles to the post of "District Judge (Entry Level) B by direct recruitment from the Bar (2015 Advertisement) and Civil Judge (2019 & above) for the State of Bihar.2022 Advertisement) for the State of Gujarat”.
Apart from demanding cancellation of the selection, a group of petitions had urged that the clause of the Bihar Superior Judicial (Amendment) Rules was contrary to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission.
Taking into account the concerns of judicial services, candidates and the difficult selection process for judges in the district judiciary, the apex court issued several directions, including that the high courts should be given recruitment with "clearly defined roles The procedure should inform the designated authority." Duties and responsibilities to deal with candidates' issues.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashan Kumar Mishra on petitions filed by various unsuccessful candidates of the District Judicial Services of Bihar and Gujarat. The petitions deal with the question "whether setting minimum marks for interview is a violation of the apex court's 2002 judgment in the All India Judges case"."Prescribing minimum qualifying marks for interview is acceptable and is not in violation of the All India Judges (2002), which accepted certain recommendations of the KJ Shetty Commission," the judgment said.
Writing a 59-page judgment for the bench, Justice Roy said the apex court's judgment cannot be treated as an officially pronounced judgment if it is done with minimum cut-off marks in the interview section.
The judgment upheld the "selection process" of Biha and Gujarat and declared it legally valid.
It also rejected pleas challenging a section of Bihar Rules, 195 and Rule 8(3) of Gujarat Rules, 2005, which prescribed minimum marks for interview.
The recruitment is related to the selection of Judicial Officers of various ranks and respective selection cycles to the post of "District Judge (Entry Level) B by direct recruitment from the Bar (2015 Advertisement) and Civil Judge (2019 & above) for the State of Bihar.2022 Advertisement) for the State of Gujarat”.
Apart from demanding cancellation of the selection, a group of petitions had urged that the clause of the Bihar Superior Judicial (Amendment) Rules was contrary to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission.