The Supreme Court has directed the High Court of Jharkhand to disclose to the candidates appearing for the post of District Judge in the state, the marks they obtained in viva voce examination.
The Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Karol on Friday granted four weeks time to the Jharkhand High Court to complete the process.
The orders were passed on a petition challenging the new regulation adopted by the Jharkhand High Court, particularly with respect to viva-voce examination in the recruitment of district judiciary.
Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde apprised the Apex Court that the recruitment rules required the candidates to get 30 percent marks in viva-voce examination, while as per the new regulation adopted by the High Court, the requirement had gone up to 50 percent.
He submitted that the petitioners apprehended that their names were not recommended because they did not get 50 percent marks in viva-voce examination as required by the new regulation.
The Counsel requested the top court of the country to consider the petitioners’ demand that no appointments be made till the re-opening of the High Court. He further sought directions to publish the marksheet of the candidates.
On the Apex Court’s query regarding the final decision, Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar, representing the High Court, said that the High Court has already taken the final decision.
He said there were 22 vacancies. The High Court has made recommendation for 13 and the decision was pending with the Jharkhand government. He added that there were a number of districts which were functioning without a district judge.
The Counsel for the respondent assured the petitioners that all of them had obtained more than 50 percent marks in the viva voce examination and that this was not the basis for their names not being recommended for appointment to the post of district judge.
Noting that the statement made by Kumar on behalf of the High Court had resolved the issue in the present petition, the Apex Court disposed of the plea and the impleadment applications.
However, it gave liberty to the impleaders to approach the appropriate forum, in case they were not satisfied with the Supreme Court verdict.
(Case title: Sushil Kumar Pandey and Ors vs High Court of Jharkhand and Anr)