In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether executive instructions, such as a resolution by a Full Court, can override statutory rules established under Articles 234 and 309 of the Constitution. This issue was examined in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015). The judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S.V.N. Bhatti, provided a decisive ruling on this significant legal matter.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a 2013 recruitment process for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Manipur Judicial Service. Salam Samarjeet Singh, a Scheduled Caste candidate, participated in the written examination and was initially declared unsuccessful. However, a 2014 corrigendum declared him successful with 52.8% marks, meeting the qualifying benchmark for his category.
The controversy arose when, just before the interview stage, the Full Court of the High Court of Manipur decided to impose a minimum cut-off of 40% marks for the interview, a decision taken without amending the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (MJS Rules, 2005) and without notifying the candidates. Singh, who scored 18.8 out of 50 marks in the interview, was ultimately declared unsuccessful due to the newly imposed cut-off.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court faced three primary legal questions:
1. Can executive instructions, like a Full Court resolution, override statutory rules under Articles 234 and 309 of the Constitution?
2. Can criteria, such as a cut-off for interview marks, be introduced after the recruitment process has begun, without amending the rules or informing the candidates?
3. Does this action align with procedural fairness?
Arguments
Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, argued that the imposition of a 40% cut-off for the interview was illegal, as it was introduced without amending the statutory rules or notifying the candidates. He claimed this was a mid-process change of the "rules of the game," violating principles of fairness.
In contrast, Senior Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Vijay Hanssaria, defended the Full Court's decision, stating it aligned with the Shetty Commission's recommendations and past Supreme Court judgments. He argued that the decision, made before the interviews began, did not violate any statutory provisions.
Supreme Court's Observations and Decision
1. *Override of Statutory Rules by Executive Instructions:* The Court ruled that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules. It emphasized that such instructions cannot replace the method of final selection specified by the statutory rules.
2. *Introducing Criteria Mid-Process:* The Court found that imposing a 40% cut-off for the interview, without amending the MJS Rules, 2005, was unlawful. The introduction of this criterion mid-process, without proper notification, was deemed an unfair substitution of the established rules.
3. *Procedural Fairness:* The Court held that the Full Court's decision violated the petitioner's legitimate expectations and failed the tests of fairness, consistency, and predictability, making it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner was wrongful. It ordered the High Court to declare Salam Samarjeet Singh successful and to issue an appointment order, granting him notional seniority from 2015. However, the Court specified that Singh would not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period before his appointment.
This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory rules and procedural fairness in judicial and administrative processes.
AdvoTalks: Talk to Lawyer https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
