Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal [August 22, 2024]
Background
This case arose from the 2013 recruitment process for District Judge (Entry Level) in the Manipur Judicial Service Grade-I. Salam Samarjeet Singh, the petitioner, successfully cleared the written examination. However, after the written test, the Full Court of the Manipur High Court introduced a new requirement: candidates must score a minimum of 40% in the viva-voce (interview) segment to qualify, despite this not being stipulated in the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (MJS Rules) or the recruitment advertisement. Singh, who secured 18.8 out of 50 marks in the interview but had an aggregate above 50%, was declared unsuccessful solely due to not meeting this new viva-voce cut-off.
Key Legal Issues
Whether executive instructions (such as a Full Court resolution) can override statutory rules governing recruitment under Articles 234 and 309 of the Constitution.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation and procedural fairness in public employment.
The retrospective application of new criteria in an ongoing recruitment process.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Supremacy of Statutory Rules: The Court held that statutory rules, like the MJS Rules, take precedence over executive instructions or resolutions. The imposition of a 40% viva-voce cut-off was illegal because it was not part of the existing rules or the recruitment advertisement at the time the process began.
Violation of Legitimate Expectation: Candidates have a legitimate expectation that the recruitment process will be conducted according to the rules and criteria advertised at its commencement. The sudden introduction of a new cut-off after the process had started violated this expectation and the principles of fairness, consistency, and predictability.
No Estoppel Against Law: The argument that a candidate who participates in the process cannot later challenge it was rejected. The Court reiterated that estoppel cannot override statutory law, especially when the challenge is to an illegal change in criteria.
Procedural Fairness: The Court emphasized that amendments affecting recruitment criteria must be made prospectively and with due notice. Retrospective changes undermine procedural fairness and are unconstitutional under Article 14.
Relief Granted: The Supreme Court directed the High Court to declare Singh successful and appoint him as District Judge (Entry Level). He was granted notional seniority from 2015 (the year of the interview), but not entitled to back wages or monetary benefits for the period prior to his appointment.
Conclusion
The judgment in Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal underscores that statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive resolutions, and that recruitment processes must adhere strictly to the advertised criteria. It reinforces the doctrines of legitimate expectation and procedural fairness, setting a precedent for transparent and lawful public employment practices.
RELATED Blog
0 comments