In a recent ruling, a two-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra upheld the validity of the amendment made in rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.
The background of the case is as follows:
The petitioner graduated from Bangalore’s National Law School of India University with a law degree. In order to be considered for the position of Junior Division Civil Judge (Entry Level), the petitioner planned to take the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Exam, which will be administered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 were amended and established an extra eligibility requirement for the Junior Division (Entry Level) Civil Judge post. The amendment stipulated that applicants could be either an exceptional law graduate who passed all exams on their first try and obtained at least 70% in aggregate for General and OBC candidates, or at least 50% of the possible points in the aggregate for candidates from the reserved category. Alternatively, applicants could be those who had been practicing continuously as advocates for at least three years on the last day fixed for application submission. As the petitioner’s law degree grade was 66.2%, he was ineligible to take the test because the minimum required score was 70% overall. Since the petitioner did not meet the qualifying requirements, a petition to set aside the aforementioned amendment was submitted in the instant petition.
The petitioners argued that that the challenged provision, which stipulates that a candidate must receive 70% on aggregate on their first try, is unlawful. It is violative of Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. Also, students receive different grades from different universities. While certain universities are liberal, others are not. It is therefore improper in the law to evaluate a candidate’s grades without taking into account the University’s background in comparison to other universities. The contested amendment would have a retroactive or retrospective effect as a result. That if the students had been aware that they needed to receive an overall grade of 70%, they would have studied harder to meet the requirements. Nevertheless, the fact that the contested rule takes into account the student’s grades earned during his legal education would be detrimental. However, as the contested rule takes into account the student’s grades earned during his legal degree, it would be detrimental. There is no nexus between the amendment under dispute and the goal aimed to be achieved. That the goal of choosing the best candidates has nothing to do with the criteria of earning 70% marks on the first try. Due to this condition, a great candidate who is brilliant and has potential who may not have received 70% overall may not be able to take the exam. Also, the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission is required to administer the exam for the Junior Division (Entry Level) Civil Judge positions. But in this particular case, it is done by the High Court, which is against the law and is liable to be set aside. No reservation has been provided for candidates belonging to economically weaker section of the society, namely, EWS candidates. Regarding candidates who have a post-graduate degree in law, the regulation is silent. The rule merely stipulates that a person must be a law graduate; postgraduate students are not mentioned in the rule.
After hearing the arguments of both the parties, and analysis of various laws the High Court of Madhya Pradesh concluded that Article 51A(j) of the Indian Constitution states that an endeavor should be made to strive towards excellence. With the contested amendment, the High Court seeks to accomplish precisely that. The court also observed that ‘The judiciary has remained content with the levels of standards fixed decades ago. This may not be appropriate. It is a high time that the judiciary also competes on excellence in order to ensure that excellent results are achieved. It is only when a brilliant law graduate with a brilliant academic career is selected as a judge, that one can be sure that the judgments will be qualitative.’ and dismissed the petition holding the mentioned amendment constitutionally valid.
CAUSE TITLE: Devansh Kaushik vs State of MP (WRIT PETITION No. 15150 of 2023)
WRITTEN BY V.ANGELIN SUBIKSHA, SECOND YEAR LLB STUDENT, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, VELLORE, AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
REFERENCES:
Devansh Kaushik vs State of MP (WRIT PETITION No. 15150 of 2023)
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments