NDLI: Sivanandan C T and Others Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules 1961
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Disposed Off
Headnote	Issue for consideration: Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Kerala State HigherJudicial Services Special Rules 1961 stipulates that 25% of the posts in thecategory shall be fi lled by direct recruitment from the Bar “on the basis ofaggregate marks/grade obtained in a competitive examination and viva-voceconducted by the High Court”. The scheme of examination specifi callystipulated that there shall be no cut off marks for the viva voce. Whetherthe decision of the High Court to prescribe a cut-off for the viva-voceexamination was arbitrary.Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules 1961 – rule 2(c)(iii) – The scheme which was notifi ed by the High Court on 13.12.2012clearly specifi ed that there would be no cut off marks in respect of theviva-voce – However, the decision of the High Court to prescribe a cutofffor the viva-voce examination was taken much after the viva-vocetests were conducted – Propriety:Held: The Administrative Committee of the High Court decided toimpose a cut off for the viva-voce examination actuated by the bona fi dereason of ensuring that candidates with requisite personality assume judicialoffi ce – Such a change would be required to be brought in by a substantiveamendment to the Rules which came in much later – This is not a casewhere the rules or the scheme of the High Court were silent – Where thestatutory rules are silent, they can be supplemented in a manner consistent with the object and spirit of the Rules by an administrative order – In thepresent case, the statutory rules expressly provided that the select list wouldbe drawn up on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained in the writtenexamination and the viva-voce – This was further elaborated in the schemeof examination which prescribed that there would be no cut off marks forthe viva-voce – This position is also refl ected in the notifi cation of the HighCourt dated 30.09.2015 – In this backdrop, the decision of the High Courtsuff ered from its being ultra vires the 1961 Rules besides being manifestlyarbitrary. [Paras 15 and 16]Doctrines – Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Claim under:Held: An individual who claims a benefi t or entitlement based on thedoctrine of legitimate expectation has to establish: (i) the legitimacy of theexpectation; and (ii) that the denial of the legitimate expectation led to theviolation of Article 14. [Para 44]Doctrines – Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Whether the HighCourt’s decision frustrates the legitimate expectation of the petitioners:Held: Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules provided at the material time that25% of the posts of District and Sessions Judges should be fi lled by directrecruitment from the Bar on the basis of aggregate marks/grade obtained inthe written examination and the viva-voce conducted by the High Court – Thescheme of examination specifi cally stipulates that there shall be no cut offmarks for the viva voce – The petitioners would have expected no minimumcut-off for the viva voce in view of the express stipulation in the scheme ofexamination – Both the above expectations of the petitioners are legitimateas they are based on the sanction of statutory rules, scheme of examination– The decision of the Administrative Committee to depart from the expectedcourse of preparing the merit list of the selected candidates is contrary to theunamended 1961 Rules – In the instant case, the requirement of a minimumcut-off for the viva-voce was introduced after the viva voce was conducted –The petitioners had no notice that such a requirement would be introduced forthe viva voce examination – The High Court’s decision to apply a minimumcut-off for the viva voce frustrated the substantive legitimate expectation ofthe petitioners – Since, the decision of the High Court is legally untenable andfails on the touchstone of fairness, consistency, and predictability, such a courseof action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. [Paras 46, 47, 51 and 52] Principles – Principles of good administration:Held: The principles of good administration require that the decisionsof public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency,and predictability to avoid being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article14. [Para 55]Doctrines – Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Limitation inapplication of:Held: A public authority must objectively demonstrate by placingrelevant material before the court that its decision was in the public interestto frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation. [Para 55]Directions – The High Court’s decision to apply a minimum cutofffor the viva voce frustrated the substantive legitimate expectationof the petitioners – The decision of the High Court is legally untenable– Whether the petitioners can be inducted into the Higher JudicialService:Held: In terms of relief, it would be contrary to the public interest todirect the induction of the petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service afterthe lapse of more than six years – Candidates who were selected nearly sixyears ago cannot be unseated – They were all qualifi ed and have been servingthe district judiciary of the state – Unseating them at this stage would becontrary to public interest – To induct the petitioners would be to bring innew candidates in preference to those who are holding judicial offi ce for alength of time – To deprive the State and its citizens of the benefi t of theseexperienced judicial offi cers at a senior position would not be in publicinterest. [Para 55]
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 709
Petitioner	Sivanandan C T And Others
Respondent	High Court Of Kerala And Others
SCR	[2023] 11 S.C.R. 674
Judgement Date	2023-07-12
Case Number	229

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sivanandan C T and Others Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan Others

V.k. Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Govt. of U.p. & Anr.

Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Ms. X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another

Ram Bhagat Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.

Sivanandan C.t. & Ors. Vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors.

Delhi Judicial Services Association and Ors. Vs. Delhi High Court and Ors.

Mahinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Through Registrar General &ors

All India Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Sivanandan C T and Others Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others

Sivanandan C T and Others Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan Others

V.k. Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Govt. of U.p. & Anr.

Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Ms. X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another

Ram Bhagat Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.

Sivanandan C.t. & Ors. Vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors.

Delhi Judicial Services Association and Ors. Vs. Delhi High Court and Ors.

Mahinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Through Registrar General &ors

All India Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Sivanandan C T and Others Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others