MAHINDER KUMAR & ORS. v. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL &·ORS ~

virtue of Rule 7 and para 9(iv), the 1st respondent High Court A ---rr had every authority to prescribe the procedure, while making the selection to the post of higher judicial service and that such procedure followed was also rational.

70Copy pinpoint70. The learned senior counsel then relied upon Ramesh B Kumar (supra). The said decision in fact followed the principle that the rule of the game cannot be changed after the game was over as has been held in K. Manjusree (supra). Therefore,

r the said decision does not improve the case of the petitioners. c

71Copy pinpoint71. Mr. Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Court, referred to para 27 of the decision reported in All India Judges' Association and others (supra), wherein this court has emphasized the necessity for ensuring a high degree of efficiency in the matter of recruitment to the higher judicial service .. while holding the competitive examination and viva D ...,... voce examination. There can be no two opinions about the said principle and for that very reason we have held that the selection and appointment finalized and made by the 1st respondent High Court, does not call for interference. E

72Copy pinpoint72. The learned senior counsel rightly placed reliance upon K.H. Siraj (supra). In para 50, this court has highlighted as to how the High Court was justified in evolving its own procedure, while making a selection to fill up a post in the higher judicial ~ service. Para 50 has alieady been extracted above. F

73Copy pinpoint73. Applying the principles laid down by this court, we find that the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent High Court was well in order and the same does not call for interference.

74Copy pinpoint74. Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not find G any merit either in Writ Petitions or in the Civil Appeals and the same are therefore dismissed.

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. Having had the opportunity of going through the judgment prepared by my learned brother, H

p. 936 Copy page pinpoint

A Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., I fully concur with the same. I just, however, wish to emphasise the fact that there is no material on record in support of Ground 'D' taken in the Writ Petition, wherein it has been mentioned that "To top it all, the minimum percentage requirement for final selectio_n was increased to 50% at the final stage." [Emphasis Supplied].

2. Nowhere in the advertisement inviting applications for filling up the 20 posts in the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the Bar, has it been indicated as to what would be the minimum percentage of marks, which would be required for final selection. The only place where reference has been made to the said figure is in the Resolution of the Selection Committee adopted on 23rd March, 2007, wherein in paragraph tit has been indicated that on the basis of the evaluation made by District Judges, Scheduled Castes D and Scheduled Tribes candidates would have to secure 35% marks and other candidates would have to secure 40% marks in the first paper and in the second paper in order to quatifyior the viva-voce. Apart from the above, there is no mention anywhere in the materials placed before us that 40% m_arks E was the bench-mark for the purpose of appointment in any of the vacant posts. It may be mentioned that all candidates who had obtained more than 40% marks in either of the two papers were called for the interview and were allotted separate marks in the interview. F

3. Thereafter, on the aggregate of .the mark~ obtained by the candidates, only Shri Axay Kumar Dwivedi, placed at Serial No.1 of the merit list, was found suitable to be recommended for appointment as a District Jud9e on probation. However, the problem was caused by the note written by the Registrar G General of the High Court indicated at the bottom of the final Select List, wherein it was mentioned that Shri Axay Kumar Dwivedi, who had obtained more than 50% marks, was found suitable to be recommended for appointment. The said note has given cause for Ground 'D' to the Writ Petition, although, H

p. 937 Copy page pinpoint

[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, J.]

there is nothing, even in the note, to suggest that previously A 40% of the total marks had been declared or accepted to be the bench-mark for appointment. The note is merely a statement which indicates that the selected candidate, Shri Axay Kumar Dwivedi, had obtained more than 50% marks. The same does not either indicate or pre-suppose that the.re was a lower bench- B mark for the Petitioners to claim in Ground 'D' that the bench- mark had been increased to 50%.

4. In that view of the matter, the Writ Peti~ions and the Civil Appeals cannot succeed and have to be dismissed, as has been indicated by my learned· brother, Fakkir Mohamed C Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Matters disposed of.