Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 2039 - SC - Indian LawsSelection 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.
|