The Supreme Court proceedings in Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal address the constitutional limits of administrative discretion in judicial recruitment. Arising from Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294 of 2015, the matter examines whether a High Court can introduce a minimum qualifying marks threshold for viva voce examinations after the selection process has commenced, without amending existing statutory service rules.
Genesis of the Dispute in Manipur Judicial Service Recruitment
In 2013, the High Court of Manipur initiated a direct recruitment drive for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) under the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The petitioner, Salam Samarjeet Singh, an advocate belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, submitted his application and participated in the written examination conducted in May 2014. The petitioner emerged as the sole candidate to successfully secure qualifying marks in the written examination and was subsequently invited to appear for the viva voce interview.
Following the interview, the petitioner discovered that he was not recommended for appointment. The High Court administration took the stand that he had failed to secure a minimum of 40 percent marks in the viva voce test, which had been fixed by a Full Court resolution passed after the written examinations were concluded. The petitioner challenged this exclusion before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the retrospective imposition of an unnotified cut-off violated the settled doctrine that the rules of the game cannot be changed midway through a selection process.
The recruitment notification had advertised one vacant post under the unreserved category and one post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Having cleared the competitive written examination where other candidates failed to obtain qualifying marks, the petitioner argued that his composite performance satisfied all statutory conditions laid down in the 2005 Rules.
The 2016 Split Verdict in the Supreme Court
On October 7, 2016, a Division Bench comprising Justice Shiva Kirti Singh and Justice R. Banumathi delivered separate opinions reflecting divergent interpretations of administrative autonomy and candidate expectations:
- Opinion of Justice Shiva Kirti Singh: Held that the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005, did not prescribe minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce test. In the absence of an express statutory rule or prior notification in the recruitment advertisement, the High Court could not alter the selection criteria midway to exclude a candidate who qualified on aggregate marks. Justice Singh concluded that the Full Court resolution operated unfairly against the petitioner and directed his appointment.
- Opinion of Justice R. Banumathi: Took the view that the High Court possessed inherent constitutional authority under Article 235 of the Constitution to maintain high standards of competence and integrity in the higher judiciary. Justice Banumathi held that fixing a reasonable minimum interview threshold of 40 percent was a legitimate administrative measure to assess personality and judicial temperament, thereby justifying the petitioner's non-selection.
Due to this divergence of opinion, the Division Bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench to settle the authoritative position of law.
Constitutional Questions and the Principle of Legitimate Expectation
The dispute brought to the forefront foundational questions concerning constitutional fairness, administrative authority, and statutory compliance under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:
- Substantive Legitimate Expectation: Whether candidates participating in a public selection process have an enforceable right to be assessed strictly according to the criteria announced at the inception of the recruitment.
- Primacy of Statutory Rules: Whether administrative or executive instructions issued through Full Court resolutions can introduce qualifying benchmarks not contemplated by parent statutory service rules.
- Permissibility of Midway Rule Changes: Whether introducing a viva voce elimination threshold after evaluating written examination results violates Article 14 by creating arbitrary disqualifications.
- Scope of Article 235: Whether the supervisory power of the High Court over subordinate courts allows it to bypass statutory rules framed under Article 234 and Article 309 of the Constitution.
Subsequent Resolution by the Three-Judge Bench in 2024
The legal controversy was definitively settled when a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, heard the reference and delivered its unanimous judgment on August 22, 2024. The larger bench ruled firmly in favor of Salam Samarjeet Singh, establishing that administrative instructions cannot override statutory recruitment rules.
The Supreme Court held that while High Courts maintain supervisory control over subordinate courts under Article 235, such administrative power must be exercised within the four corners of statutory rules framed under Article 234 and the proviso to Article 309. Introducing minimum qualifying marks for interviews without amending the statutory rules or notifying candidates in advance breaches substantive legitimate expectations. The court affirmed that an administrative resolution cannot substitute for statutory amendments.
The bench concluded that disqualifying the sole qualifying candidate on an unnotified benchmark was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court directed the High Court of Manipur to issue a formal appointment letter to Salam Samarjeet Singh for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) with notional seniority and all consequential service benefits from the date the vacancy arose.
Understanding these procedural standards helps protect candidate rights and promotes access to justice across public institutions. Similar principles governing administrative boundaries and judicial review standards continue to guide courts in upholding procedural fairness.
Impact on Public Service and Judicial Examinations in India
The jurisprudence emerging from Salam Samarjeet Singh establishes strict boundaries for public recruiting bodies and High Court administrations across India. Public service commissions and judicial selection committees cannot modify eligibility standards, qualifying percentages, or shortlisting criteria once a recruitment notification is published, unless the parent statutory rules expressly empower such adjustments. This precedent guarantees transparency, predictable merit assessment, and constitutional protection for aspirants seeking public office.