Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007 – r.6 – Absorption of Adhoc Judges on regular basis – In Brij Mohan Lal case, Supreme Court prescribed the modalities and procedure for absorption of Adhoc Judges on regular basis – It included qualifying test as well as viva voce test – Pursuant thereto, appellant-High Court issued notification for the examination and held the qualifying examination and also conducted interviews – All four respondents had secured the required minimum 40%/35% qualifying marks in the written examination – However, none of them had secured 40%/35% marks in the viva voce – Further, none of them had secured 40%/35% marks in combined written test and viva voce examination – Respondents were considered not qualified for absorption on regular basis – Writ petition by the respondents – High Court took the view that Brij Mohan Lal case does not mention qualifying marks in viva voce and further pointed out that there was no stipulation for securing minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test either as per advertisement or as per the Rules – On appeal, held: Brij Mohan Lal case does not lay down minimum qualifying marks for viva voce – It, however, prescribed qualifying marks in aggregate i.e. both for written examination and interview combined – Insofar as Rules are concerned, minimum qualifying marks are mentioned for written examination only – Combined and cumulative effect of the judgment along with Rules is that minimum qualifying marks were required for written examination and no minimum qualifying marks were required for interview, however, consolidated qualifying marks were required for written examination and interview, which was 40% for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OBC candidates – In instant case, all the respondents obtained qualifying marks in written examination, but none of them had secured qualifying aggregate/consolidated percentage marks – Thus, the respondents did not secure consolidated qualifying marks (i.e. both in written plus interview) as mandated by the Brij Mohan Lal case – Service Law – Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Adhoc Appointments, 2001.
Supreme Court-Directions – Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007 – Absorption of Adhoc Judges on regular basis – In Brij Mohan Lal case, Supreme Court prescribed the modalities and procedure for absorption of Adhoc Judges on regular basis – Pursuant thereto, appellant-High Court issued notification for the examination and held the qualifying examination and also conducted interviews – All four respondents were considered not qualified for absorption on regular basis – Held: The respondents did not secure qualifying marks as per the judgment of the Supreme Court – However, considering the marks of the candidates, two candidates had secured 99.7 and 99.3 marks as against the required marks of 100 – Their marks rounded off to 100, considering that they were working as ad-hoc judges for number of years and also that it was only a qualifying examination for the purpose of regularisation – Therefore, these two candidates/respondents to be treated as qualified – Insofar as other two candidates are concerned, they had secured 40%/35% marks in written examination though they were not able to secure required aggregate marks – However, considering their substantial years of service and also the fact that one of them belonged to SC category, who are supposed to secure minimum qualifying marks of 30% in written examination as per Rules – Thus, one more chance given to them to appear in written examination and viva voce in accordance with mandate in Brij Mohan Lal case – This direction given in exercise of powers u/Art.142 of the Constitution – Service Law – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Adhoc Appointments, 2001.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment in Brij Mohan Lal’s case does not lay down minimum qualifying marks for viva voce. It, however, prescribes qualifying marks in aggregate i.e. both for written examination and interview combined. [Para 17] [422-C]
2. Since the Court also directed that examination and interview shall be held in accordance with the relevant Rules enacted by the State for direct appointment to the Higher Judicial Services, such Rules were to be followed except to the extent they stood modified by the modalities prescribed by the Court. For example, in the instant case, though Rule 6 of the Rules prescribes 30% qualifying marks for SC and ST category in written examination. Thus, the candidates were required to obtain such qualifying marks in the written examination. At the same time they were also mandated to secure consolidated qualifying marks (i.e. both in written plus interview) as prescribed in Brij Mohan Lal’s case. [Para 18] [422-D-E]
3. It follows that insofar as written examination and interview is concerned, the minimum qualifying marks could be insisted upon if there was a stipulation to this effect in the Rules, inasmuch as there was no such direction in the judgment on this aspect. Further, insofar as Rules are concerned, minimum qualifying marks are mentioned for written examination only. A combined and cumulative effect of the judgment along with the Rules would be as under: (a) Minimum qualifying marks are required for written examination by general candidates and SC/ST/OBC candidates respectively; (b) No minimum qualifying marks are required for interview. However, consolidated qualifying marks for written examination and interview are required which is 40% aggregate for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OBC candidates. [Para 19] [422-F-H; 423-A]
4. In instant case, all the respondents obtained qualifying marks in written examination. At the same time, none of them could secure qualifying aggregate/consolidated percentage marks. Insofar as non-securing of qualifying consolidated marks by the respondents is concerned, though the High Court has noted this fact but has not touched upon this aspect at all. It has only dealt with the aspect of requirement of minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test. [Para 20] [423-B]
5. Thus, faced with the situation where the respondents could not secure qualifying marks as per the judgment of this Court. However, a close scrutiny of the marks obtained by respondents would disclose that two candidates, have secured
99.7 and 99.3 marks as against the required marks of 100. Their marks are rounded off to 100, going by the consideration that they have been working as ad-hoc judges for number of years and also the fact that it was only a qualifying examination for the purpose of regularisation. Therefore, these two candidates/respondents have to be treated as qualified the written test and interview when their marks are aggregated. [Para 21] [423-C-E]
6. No doubt, other two candidates could not secure 40%/35% aggregates marks and, therefore, they cannot be treated as having qualified the examination (consisting of written test and interview). However, going by the finding they have, by this time, substantial number of years of service. Moreover, in the written examination they could secure 40%/35% marks though they fell short of this target when it comes to securing aggregate marks is concerned. It may also be pointed out that one of the candidates belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and as per the Rules persons belonging to the SC/ST category are supposed to secure a minimum qualifying mark of 30% in the written examination. In such circumstances, it would be more appropriate to give them one more chance to appear in the written examination and viva voce, which should be held by the High Court in accordance with the mandate in Brij Mohan Lal’s case. This direction, therefore, is given having in mind the aforesaid equitable considerations, and in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. [Para 22] [423-F-H; 424-A]
Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 6 SCC
502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305 – relied on.
Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 721 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 367 ;
A. A. Calton v. Director of Education & Anr. (1983) 3 SCC 33 ; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 : [2008] 2 SCR 1025 ; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar (2010) 13 SCC 467: [2010] 10 SCR 161 ; Arunachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 737 : [2013] 2 SCR 1134 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.