MAHINDER KUMAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having had the opportunity of going through the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., 1 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 selection was increased to 50% at the final stage.

(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 1 it has been indicated that on the basis of the evaluation made by District Judges, Scheduled Castes 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 qualify for the viva-voce. Apart from the above, there is no mention anywhere in the materials placed before us that 40% marks 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.

(3.) Thereafter, on the aggregate of the marks 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 Judge on probation. However, the problem was caused by the note written by the Registrar 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, there is nothing, even in the note, to suggest that previously 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 there was a lower bench-mark for the Petitioners to claim in Ground 'D' that the bench-mark had been increased to 50%.