Supreme Court to examine minimum cut-off marks in judicial service interview, seeks State-wise data

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was willing to examine whether prescribing a minimum qualifying threshold in interview rounds for judicial service recruitment is permissible, while raising broader concerns about the efficiency and fairness of the existing judicial selection process.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by Ajay Kumar Shyamkishor challenging the viva voce cut-off applied in a judicial service recruitment process.

He told the Court that while he had scored high marks during the written component of the judicial exams, his recruitment prospects suffered after he narrowly missed the cut off for the interview/ viva voce round.

The Court yesterday noted that another case concerning larger concerns about judicial service recruitment is already pending before a three-judge Bench.

The Court suggested that the petitioner's counsel, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, could assist in this matter and asked him to collate comparative informationon the practices followed by different States on interview-related cut-offs.

"It is not that we are unwilling to examine the issue. But a larger judicial services matter is already pending before a three judges bench. There are issues relating to judicial service recruitment already pending consideration. You may assist the Court by collating comparative information and preparing a chart regarding practices followed across different States," CJI Kant said.

Earlier in the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan informed the Court that the petitioner had secured the third highest marks in the written examination but was awarded 18 out of 50 in the interview (viva voce), less than the minimum qualifying mark of 20.

Bhushan told the Court that the interview component in the examination was 20 percent of total marks, with a 40 per cent qualifying threshold within that. He argued this was inconsistent with the Kothari Commission recommendations, which had suggested interview marks be restricted to 12.5 percent ordinarily, and even lower where written scores were high.

He also flagged that different Benches of the Supreme Court have taken conflicting positions on whether a minimum cut-off in interviews could be prescribed at all.

Bhushan submitted that the abysmally low number of candidates ultimately selected in judicial service recruitments was itself evidence of a systemic problem.

"In at least three cases, this Court has observed that where only one-fourth of the vacancies are ultimately filled, that itself demonstrates a problem with the selection process," he said.

Justice Bagchi noted that panelists in interview rounds are not made aware of the written marks obtained by candidates, though Bhushan clarified that this was not the primary ground being pressed.

The judge also flagged the employment dimension of the issue. With a large number of law graduates appearing for these examinations, Justice Bagchi observed that recruitment could not be conducted without ensuring a minimum standard was met.

CJI Surya Kant raised two distinct concerns from the Bench's side. He pointed out that in certain High Courts, candidates from other parts of the country had reportedly fared poorly in interviews on account of language barriers, though he acknowledged that this was not the situation before the Court in the present case.

The CJI also questioned whether the country had a sufficient pool of meritorious candidates to sustain the current selection framework, and flagged the larger cost question.

"So much public funding is spent on conducting these examinations. If ultimately the outcome is minimal, that aspect also has to be considered," he observed.

[Read Live Coverage]