The Supreme court on Monday dated May 6, 2024 in its judgment for the 2015 judicial service case upheld the validity of the selection process in the Gujarat and state judicial services .While saying more about the judgment.
The bench led by justice Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant kumar Mishra had also reflected on the importance of minimum qualifying marks for the interview in the state judicial service. In the judgment they had also mentioned that these interviews are not just about selection. They are also done to enhance the skill of the candidate and mentioning more benefits of the interview, the bench said that these interviews are not done just to know the skills or the knowledge of the participant but to know more about the candidate’s personality and his/her thinking.
The petition was filed by the 46 candidates who had given the examination for the 99 vacancies of the judicial services in 2015.
In the plea it was shown that out of the 99 vacancies only 9 candidates were eligible to give the interview and in that exam also, only 60 candidates were there who got less marks despite performing well there.
However the supreme court declined all the allegations of bias about the selection process in the judicial service exam.
Commenting on the validity of viva voce as a permissible test, the Court observed thus:
“But, despite all this criticism, the oral interview method continues to be very much in vogue as a supplementary test for assessing the suitability of candidates wherever test of personal traits is considered essential. Its relevance as a test for determining suitability based on personal characteristics has been recognised in a number of decisions of this Court which are binding upon us.”
Court has also further said about the importance of this viva voce test and they had also explained in details about its important and in the current times why it is necessary to be used for the qualification. They have mentioned some reasons bout that why the courts or the exam conducting authorities are bound to follow this pattern for qualification of candidates in the judicial services exam.
“The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission to college or even in the matter of public employment, the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity, calibre and qualification.”
Aftermath of saying the judgment, the Supreme court reject the petition of the 46 candidates who were not selected in the judicial services and upheld the validity of the selection process for the judicial services in different states.
CASE NAME : Abhimeet sinha and others vs High court of judicature at patna and others ( 2016)
NAME – DAKSH SRIVASTAVA, COURSE – BA.LLB (Hons), COLLEGE- G.D. GOENKA UNIVERSITY, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
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