Case analysis: Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. The High Court of Jharkhand

Provision Involved:
Rules 14, 18, 21, and 22 of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial (Recruitment, Appointment, and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001: These rules govern the recruitment process for District Judges in the Jharkhand judiciary.

Facts of the Case:

• This case revolved around the selection process for District Judges in Jharkhand.
• The petitioners, including Sushil Kumar Pandey, had applied for the position through direct recruitment from the bar.
• They successfully appeared for both the written and viva-voce examinations.
• However, a subsequent Full Court Resolution of the Jharkhand High Court introduced a new criterion—candidates had to secure at least 50% marks in aggregate (combined marks of the written and viva-voce tests) to qualify for recommendation for appointment.
• The petitioners challenged this post-examination change in criteria, arguing that such a change after the examination process was arbitrary and affected their chances of selection.
• They contended that the High Court should have adhered to the initial qualifying criteria stated in the advertisement.

Supreme Court's Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the Full Court Resolution changing the selection criteria after the examination was not justified.
• The Court emphasized that altering the selection process mid-way undermines the fairness and transparency expected in competitive exams.
• The Court noted that such a practice breaches the principles of natural justice.
• The Supreme Court further directed that the candidates who had cleared the viva-voce as per the earlier criteria (which did not require 50% aggregate marks) be considered for appointment.

Key Clarifications:

• Rule 21 of the 2001 Rules: This rule mandates that candidates must secure 30% in viva-voce to be eligible for appointment, while the 2017 Regulations stipulated 20 marks out of 40 as a minimum in the viva-voce. The Court found that this inconsistency in the rules should have been addressed before the selection process.
• Post-exam Changes: The Court clarified that changing eligibility criteria after the exams contravenes fairness, particularly in public recruitment processes. The candidates who had already performed based on existing criteria should not be penalized.

Relevant Paragraphs:

• Paragraph 7-9: The Court highlighted that retrospective application of selection criteria violates fairness, and candidates should be judged based on the originally advertised standards.
• Paragraph 22: The Court emphasized the importance of upholding transparency and maintaining the integrity of the judicial recruitment process.

Conclusion:
This case underscores the importance of maintaining consistency and fairness in recruitment processes, particularly when altering rules after candidates have already undergone evaluation. The ruling reaffirms that changes in criteria post-examination violate the principles of natural justice and fairness.