In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has addressed the question of whether executive instructions, in the form of a resolution by the Full Court, can override statutory rules made under Articles 234 and 309 of the Constitution. The judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015), provides a decisive answer to this legal issue.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a recruitment process initiated in 2013 for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Manipur Judicial Service. The petitioner, Salam Samarjeet Singh, a Scheduled Caste candidate, had applied for the post and appeared in the written examination. The results were initially declared unsuccessful for all candidates, but a subsequent corrigendum issued in 2014 declared Singh successful, with 52.8% marks, meeting the qualifying benchmark for his category.
However, a twist in the recruitment process occurred when, just before the interview stage, the Full Court of the High Court of Manipur resolved to fix a minimum of 40% marks as the cut-off for the viva voce (interview) examination. This decision was taken without amending the relevant statutory rules — the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (MJS Rules, 2005) — and without notifying the candidates. The petitioner, having secured 18.8 marks out of 50 in the interview, was subsequently declared unsuccessful for failing to meet the newly imposed cut-off.
Key Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were:
1. Can executive instructions in the form of a resolution of the Full Court override statutory rules made under Article 234/309 of the Constitution?
2. Can the criteria of cut-off marks be introduced by a Full Court Resolution without amending the rules after the written test is over, without informing the candidate?
3. Whether such a course of action amounts to procedural fairness or unfairness?
Arguments Presented
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Full Court’s decision to fix a 40% cut-off for the viva voce was illegal as it was made without amending the statutory rules and without due notification to the candidates. He contended that this amounted to a “midway change of rules of the game,” which is contrary to the principles of fairness. He urged the Court to rely on the judgment of a five-judge Constitution Bench in Sivanandan C.T. & Ors v. High Court of Kerala & Ors.
On the other hand, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Senior Counsel for the respondents, argued that the decision to prescribe a minimum cut-off for the viva voce was valid and aligned with the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and past Supreme Court judgments. He maintained that the decision was made before the commencement of the interview and did not violate any statutory provision.
Observations and Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, after examining the arguments and relevant precedents, made critical observations on the issues at hand.
1. On the Override of Statutory Rules by Executive Instructions:
The Court held that executive instructions, such as a Full Court resolution, cannot override statutory rules made under Article 234/309 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized, “The executive instructions cannot override statutory rules where the method of final selection by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written and the viva voce examinations is specified categorically.”
2. On Introducing Criteria After the Recruitment Process:
The Court found that the imposition of a 40% cut-off for the viva voce was not supported by the unamended MJS Rules, 2005, and that such criteria could not be introduced mid-process without proper notification to candidates. The Court observed that the Full Court resolution prescribing qualifying marks was “not a case of supplementing the rules but appears to us as a case where the Rules pertaining to the final selection of candidates have been substituted.”
3. On Procedural Fairness:
The Court ruled that the action of the High Court was unfair and violated the petitioner’s legitimate expectations. It stated, “The decision of the Full Court to depart from the expected exercise of preparing the merit list as per the unamended Rules is clearly violative of the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioner. It also fails the tests of fairness, consistency, and predictability and hence is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Final Decision and Impact
The Supreme Court upheld the dissenting opinion of Justice Shiva Kirti Singh from an earlier judgment, agreeing that the rejection of the petitioner was wrongful. The Court ordered the High Court to declare the petitioner successful and issue an appointment order, granting notional seniority from the year 2015. However, it specified that the petitioner would not be entitled to any actual monetary benefits for any period prior to his appointment.
Case Details
– Case Name: Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr
– Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015
– Bench: Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
– Petitioner: Salam Samarjeet Singh
– Respondents: The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Counsel; Mr. Ahanthem Romen Singh, Ms. Oindriala Sen, Mr. Mohan Singh, Mr. Aniket Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi (Advocates)
– Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Senior Counsel; Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Ms. Nandini Rai (Advocates)
