In Brief
The Supreme Court upheld the principle that judicial appointments must comply with advertised selection criteria and statutory rules. While the High Court was correct that minimum qualifying marks cannot be imposed for the viva voce (oral interview) test if not stipulated in the rules or advertisement, candidates must still secure the required consolidated/aggregate marks combining both written and oral components. The Court allowed two candidates who fell short by nominal margins (0.3–0.7 marks) to be appointed based on equitable grounds and their years of service. Two other candidates, despite securing qualifying written examination marks, were denied immediate appointment but granted a second chance to appear in the examination, as they also had substantial service as ad-hoc judges and one belonged to a scheduled caste, warranting further consideration under Article 142 of the Constitution."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.