Case Note & Summary
The case involves a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by eleven candidates aspiring to be selected as District Judges in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service. The dispute arose from the High Court of Kerala's decision to prescribe a minimum of 50% marks in the viva-voce test after the written examination had been conducted, contrary to the earlier notifications which stated that the merit list would be based on aggregate marks without any cut-off for viva-voce. The petitioners argued that this change violated their legitimate expectation and was arbitrary. The Supreme Court analyzed the doctrine of legitimate expectation under common law and Indian law, emphasizing that a public authority must honour its commitments unless there is an overriding public interest. The court found that the High Court had committed itself to a selection process based on aggregate marks, and the subsequent imposition of a minimum viva-voce mark was unlawful and ultra vires the 1961 Rules. The court also held that the High Court's action was arbitrary and violated Article 14, as it lacked consistency and predictability. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and directed that the selection be completed based on the original criteria, with the merit list prepared on aggregate marks.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Substantive Legitimate Expectation - The court examined whether the High Court's decision to prescribe a minimum mark for viva-voce after the written examination violated the legitimate expectation of candidates that selection would be based on aggregate marks as per the notification. Held that the High Court's commitment to a particular procedure created a legitimate expectation that it would be followed, and the subsequent change was unlawful and arbitrary (Paras 12-35). B) Service Law - Recruitment - Judicial Service - Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules, 1961 - Rule 2(c)(iii) - The High Court's notification dated 13 December 2012 and the subsequent notification dated 30 September 2015 stipulated that merit list would be prepared on the basis of total marks in written examination and viva-voce, without any minimum marks for viva-voce. The High Court's later decision to prescribe a minimum of 50% marks in viva-voce was ultra vires the 1961 Rules and the notifications (Paras 4-6, 9-11). C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Non-Arbitrariness - Consistency and Predictability - The court held that the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 requires consistency and predictability in administrative actions. The High Court's sudden change in criteria after the examination was arbitrary and violated the candidates' right to equality (Paras 26-29).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court of Kerala could, after the conduct of the written examination, prescribe a minimum mark for the viva-voce test, thereby altering the selection criteria notified earlier, and whether such action violated the legitimate expectation of the candidates and was arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the High Court's decision to prescribe minimum marks for viva-voce, and directed that the selection be completed based on the original criteria of aggregate marks in written examination and viva-voce.
Law Points
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation
- Non-arbitrariness under Article 14
- Consistency and predictability in public administration
- Ultra vires action under statutory rules
