The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of prescribing a minimum qualifying score in the interview stage for appointments to the higher judicial service, ruling that such a benchmark is neither arbitrary nor unrelated to the objective of selecting capable judicial officers.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice P.B. Varale dismissed the challenge brought by a judicial aspirant who had failed to secure the minimum 25% marks prescribed for the viva voce under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
The Court also held that the candidate could not challenge the selection criteria after participating in the recruitment process with full knowledge of the applicable rules.
The dispute arose from a proviso inserted into Rule 41, which stipulated that a candidate from the advocates’ quota could not be recommended for appointment as an Additional District Judge without obtaining at least 25% marks in the interview. The provision was subsequently deleted by the Rajasthan government in 2017.
The appellant had cleared the written examination but missed the interview threshold by just 0.5 marks. Although his overall score was higher than that of some selected candidates, he argued that the minimum viva-voce requirement should not have prevented his appointment.
The Supreme Court rejected the plea, holding that participation in a selection process under known rules prevents a candidate from later questioning those very conditions after an unsuccessful outcome.
Referring to the principle laid down in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, the Court observed that the appellant had taken part in both the written examination and the interview “with his eyes wide open.” Having failed to meet the prescribed qualifying standard, he could not subsequently challenge the rule.
The bench further held that the State government was competent to prescribe such a qualification. The requirement, it said, had a clear connection with the State’s responsibility to ensure that only candidates possessing the necessary qualities were appointed to the higher judiciary.
The Court also rejected the argument that the later deletion of the rule should result in retrospective relief.
Even if the appellant had secured a strong aggregate score, granting him an appointment years later would effectively place him ahead of officers who had already been appointed and whose seniority had become settled, the Court noted. Such a course could also trigger a wave of similar claims from candidates seeking appointments on the basis of subsequently altered rules.
The bench concluded that the appellant had acquired no vested right to appointment merely by clearing the written examination. His failure to secure the prescribed minimum marks in the viva voce was sufficient to deny him a recommendation.
The case arose from the recruitment process for 36 posts notified in Rajasthan. An earlier recruitment exercise was cancelled after protests and allegations of irregularities. The State subsequently amended Rule 41 in June 2010 and introduced the 25% interview threshold before conducting a fresh selection process in 2012.
The appellant and other candidates who fell short of the viva-voce benchmark had earlier approached the Supreme Court. While the Court declined to disturb the selection process, it left the constitutional challenge to the rule open for consideration.
The Rajasthan High Court later declined to interfere with the selection process, particularly after the State removed the contentious proviso in 2017. It also held that the appellant was barred from questioning a condition under which he had willingly participated.
The Supreme Court has now affirmed that approach, stressing that the later removal of a selection criterion does not automatically invalidate appointments made under the rule when it was in force.
The ruling also underscores the importance of finality in judicial recruitment. According to the Court, reopening completed selections and unsettled seniority years later would create uncertainty in the functioning of the higher judiciary and invite a flood of retrospective claims.
