# SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL.& ANR - **Citation:** [2016] 9 S.C.R. 771 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2015-01-12 - **Bench:** Shiva Kirti Singh, R. Banumathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/salam-samarjeet-singh-v-high-court-of-manipur-at-imphal-anr-31383 - **Pages:** 29 ## Headnote Judiciary .:... Judicial Service - Selection - Change in selection criteria in the midst of selection process by adding an additional eligibility condition/requirement - Permissibility - Manipur Judicial " Services Grade-I - Selection for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) - Respondent-High Court prescribed cut-off/ minimum quali.fYing marks for viva-voce (interview) only a few days before viva-voce - Petitioner, lone candidate declared unsuccessful in viva-voce - Whether such prescription 'of minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce during the course of selection process amounted to change in the criteria by adding an additional requirement, as initially (i.e. before the commencement of selection process) minimum quali.fYing marks were prescribed only for written examination and not for viva-voce - In view of difference of opinion, matter referred to appropriate Bench - Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - Service law - Selection. Referring the matter to appropriate Bench, the Court PERR. BANUMATHI, J.: · HELD: 1.1 As seen from the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - under the head-"EVALUATING PERFORMANCE IN COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION FOR JUDICIAL SELECTION"; a scheme of converting the numerical marks of each question into an l,lppropriate grade, according to the formula given in the table and re-converting into grades, is stipulated._ In .the table, th~ percentage of marks and Grade prescribed that marks below 40% is Grade 'F' which means 'Fail' and its Grade Value is '0'. The respondent-High Court maintained that the Full Court decision prescribing minimum" 40% marks in the interview/viva-voce was taken in order to. introduce consistency in the criteria of evaluating perfor~ance of candidates in written 771 A B c D E F G H 772 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. examination and interview/viva-voce. Since the MJS Rules already stipuiated that less than 40% marks is Grade 'F' with Grade Value '0', it was implicit in the Rules that for ·a 'pass' in - the examination, 40% minimum marks need to be obtained, though of course as per MJS Rules, this is for the cumulative Grade Value obtained in the· written examination and the interview/viva-voce examination. Keeping in view the MJS Rules, in particular, the table converting numerical marks into Grades and the final Select List that is prepared by adding cumulative grade value obtained in the written examination and the interview/ · viva-voce, fixing 40'.'fo for interview/viva-voce out of total marks C of59 is in consonance with MJS Rules and it would not amount to change in the criteria of selection in the midst of selection · process. [Para 14][782-G-H; 783-A-D] p E F G Ff 1.2 Further Clause 1(3), General Instructions of the MJS Rules reserves a right in favour of the High Court which enables the High Court to resort to the procedures, in addition to, what has been specifically laid down in the Rules. It provides that "all necessary steps not provided for in these Rules for recruitment under these Rules shall be decided by the Recruiting Authority". Having regard to the aforesaid provision; the respondent cannot be faulted with, in prescribing cut-off marks for the interview/viva-voce. The object of conducting interview/viva-voce examination was rightly stated in the Rules to assess suitability of the candidate by judging the mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and original exposition, intellectual depth and th~ like. The Rules further stipulated a vigorous and objective grade value exercise for the interview/viva-voce examination as well. Keeping in view the Rules and having regard to the seniority of the post which is . District Judge (Entry Level), the respondent cannot. be faulted with for exercising its residuary right reserved in its favour by prescribing cut-off marks for the interview. [Para 15][783-D-G] Hemani Malhotra Etc. v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 : 2008 (5) SCR 1066; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 ## Text _Characters 0–39,639 of 66,684. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39639 for what follows._ [2016] 9 S.C.R. 771 SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL.& ANR. (Writ Pe~ition (C) No. 294 of2015) OCTOBi;:R 07, 2016 [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Judiciary .:... Judicial Service - Selection - Change in selection criteria in the midst of selection process by adding an additional eligibility condition/requirement - Permissibility - Manipur Judicial " Services Grade-I - Selection for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) - Respondent-High Court prescribed cut-off/ minimum quali.fYing marks for viva-voce (interview) only a few days before viva-voce - Petitioner, lone candidate declared unsuccessful in viva-voce - Whether such prescription 'of minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce during the course of selection process amounted to change in the criteria by adding an additional requirement, as initially (i.e. before the commencement of selection process) minimum quali.fYing marks were prescribed only for written examination and not for viva-voce - In view of difference of opinion, matter referred to appropriate Bench - Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - Service law - Selection. Referring the matter to appropriate Bench, the Court PERR. BANUMATHI, J.: · HELD: 1.1 As seen from the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - under the head-"EVALUATING PERFORMANCE IN COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION FOR JUDICIAL SELECTION"; a scheme of converting the numerical marks of each question into an l,lppropriate grade, according to the formula given in the table and re-converting into grades, is stipulated._ In .the table, th~ percentage of marks and Grade prescribed that marks below 40% is Grade 'F' which means 'Fail' and its Grade Value is '0'. The respondent-High Court maintained that the Full Court decision prescribing minimum" 40% marks in the interview/viva-voce was taken in order to. introduce consistency in the criteria of evaluating perfor~ance of candidates in written 771 A B c D E F G H 772 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. examination and interview/viva-voce. Since the MJS Rules already stipuiated that less than 40% marks is Grade 'F' with Grade Value '0', it was implicit in the Rules that for ·a 'pass' in - the examination, 40% minimum marks need to be obtained, though of course as per MJS Rules, this is for the cumulative Grade Value obtained in the· written examination and the interview/viva-voce examination. Keeping in view the MJS Rules, in particular, the table converting numerical marks into Grades and the final Select List that is prepared by adding cumulative grade value obtained in the written examination and the interview/ · viva-voce, fixing 40'.'fo for interview/viva-voce out of total marks C of59 is in consonance with MJS Rules and it would not amount to change in the criteria of selection in the midst of selection · process. [Para 14][782-G-H; 783-A-D] p E F G Ff 1.2 Further Clause 1(3), General Instructions of the MJS Rules reserves a right in favour of the High Court which enables the High Court to resort to the procedures, in addition to, what has been specifically laid down in the Rules. It provides that "all necessary steps not provided for in these Rules for recruitment under these Rules shall be decided by the Recruiting Authority". Having regard to the aforesaid provision; the respondent cannot be faulted with, in prescribing cut-off marks for the interview/viva-voce. The object of conducting interview/viva-voce examination was rightly stated in the Rules to assess suitability of the candidate by judging the mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and original exposition, intellectual depth and th~ like. The Rules further stipulated a vigorous and objective grade value exercise for the interview/viva-voce examination as well. Keeping in view the Rules and having regard to the seniority of the post which is . District Judge (Entry Level), the respondent cannot. be faulted with for exercising its residuary right reserved in its favour by prescribing cut-off marks for the interview. [Para 15][783-D-G] Hemani Malhotra Etc. v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 : 2008 (5) SCR 1066; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 : 2008 (2) SCR 1025 - held inapplicable. Te} Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 540; Ku/winder Pal Singh & Am: SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR 773 AT IMPHAL & ANR. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 532 -: relied A · on. Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 (1) SCR 908; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors. (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1974 (1) SCR 165;. Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of B Delhi & Am: (2010) 3 sec 104 : 2010 (2) SCR 256; All India Judges 'Association v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 (2) SCR 712 - referred to. PER SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.:(Dissenting) HELD: 1.1 The Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 and the instructions clearly demonstrated that there was no cut-off mark or pass mark for the viva voce examination in the past and therefore the High Court on 12.01.2015 made a specific Resolution that no one shall be declared.passed and selected for appointment unless he secul"ed minimum 40% in the interview (viva voce). This powel" to add to the Rules is clail!led from the pl"ovisions of · sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Schedule 'B' of the Rules empowering the recmitment authority to take "all necessary steps not pl"ovided · fol" in these Rules fol" recmitment under these Rules ...... ". The Resolution of the High Coul"t on 12.01.2015 ran counter to expl"ess provision in the Rules as to how the final merit list was to be pI"epaI"ed by combining the marks of both the examinations. Not providing any pass mark for the viva voce while so providing fol" the written examination clearly indicated that the Rules delibel"ately chose.not to pl"escribe ant cut-off fol" the viva.voce. The explanation fol" the same lies in the 1"ecomiilendatio"1S made in this regard by the Shetty Commission. The Rules al"e almost ·verbatim copy of most of the recommendations in respect of such examination fol" 1"ec1"liitment. Clearly, they also followed the I"ecommendation of the Shetty Commission that thel"e should not be any cut off 01" fail maI"ks fol" the viva voce examination. Such omission was thus cleal"ly deliberate to facilitate the intended !"esult. Thel"e was no gap OI" vacuum hel"e and therefol"e Clause 1(3) of th~ Rules is not attracted. Hence, the Rules could not have been altel"ed by a Resolution taken by the Full Coul"t. (Para 7] (795-C-H] c D E F G 774 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. 1.2 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned act of bringing about change in the selection procedure by providing minimum marks for interview or viva voce test in midst of the selection process which has already been ·initiated amounts to changing the rules of the game and is hence impermissible. [Para 8](796-C-D] K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 : 20!)8 (2) SCR 1025; Hemani Malhotra Etc. v. HiKh Court of Delhi (2008) 1 SCC 11 : 2008 (5) SCR 1066 - relied- on. 1.3 The High Court did not have the power to change the scheme of the rules which prescribed pass marks only for the written examination, deliberately omitted the same for viva voce examination and warranted final results after adding both the marks. If for the sake of arguments, such power is conceded even then the power could not have been exercised to change the rules of the game when petitioner alone was left in the arena and could not have been disqualified except by changing the-rules midway. The statutory rules did prescribe a particular mode of selection which did not require any pass mark for the viva voce examination and it had to be given strict adherence accordingly, at least till the ongoing recruitment process got concluded. Since the procedure was already p"rescribed by the Rules, in the present case there was clear impediment in law in the way of the High Court in proceeding to lay down minimum pass mark for the viva voce test which was meant only for the petitioner as he was the lone candidate successful in the written examination. The petitioner was clearly prejudiced and although no case of bias has been pleaded, the imp,1gned action would validly attract the criticism of malice in law. The viva voce result of the petitioner dated 16.02.2015 showing him as 'unsuccessful' shall stand quashed. [Paras 8, 12][796-G; 797-A, B-D; 799-B-C] Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 540; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Jvfarwaha & Ors. (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1974 (1) SCR 165; Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 (1) SCR 908 - held inapplicable. SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR 775 AT IMPHAL & ANR. Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr: (2010) 3 A SCC 104 : 2010 (2) SCR 256; All India Judges' Associatio11 v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 (2) SCR 712; Ku/winder Pal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 532 - referred to. B Case Law Reference In the Judgment of R. Bannmathi, J.: 1984 (2) SCR 200 referred to Para4 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 367 referred to · Para4 2008 (2) SCR 1025 held inapplicable Para 21 c .. 2008 (5) SCR 1066 held inapplicable Para 21 1974 (1) SCR 165 referred to Para 21 2010 (2) SCR256 referred to Para 22 (2013) 4 sec 540 relied on Para 21 'D 2002 (2) SCR 712 referred to Paras 24, 26 1995 (1) SCR 908 referred to Para28 (2016) 6 sec 532 relied on Para30. E In the Judgment of Shiva Kirti Singh, J.: 2008 (2) SCR 1025 relied on Para8 2008 (5) SCR 1066 relied on Para8 2010 (2) SCR256 referred to Para 8 F (2013) 4 sec 540 held inapplicable Para9 1974 (1) SCR 165 held inapplicable Para9 2002 (2) SCR 712 referred to ParlJ 10 1995 (1) SCR 908 - held inapplicable Para 11 G (2016) 6 sec 532 referred to Parall CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294of2015. Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. H 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. A Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv., Boboy P., Rajiv Mehta, Advs. for the B c D E F Petitioner. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sneha Kalita,Avnish Pandey, Satyam Jyoti Saikia, S. Gowthaman, Ad vs. for the Respondents. The following Judgments and a common order of the Court were delivered by R. BANUMATID, J. I. In this Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification dated 16'" February, 2015 issued by the High Court of Manipur, whereby the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in viva-voce conducted by the High Court ofManipur for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in Manipur Judicial Services Grade-I. Petitioner seeks further direction to declare his appointment to Manipur Judicial Services Grade-I with retrospective effect. 2. An advertisement was issued by the Manipur High Court vide Notification No. HCL/A-1/2013-A&E(J)/288 da_ted 15'" May, 2013, inviting applications for recruitment to one vacant (unreserved) post of District Judge (Entry Level) in Higher Judicial Service through District Judge (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment Examination, 2013. As per the conditions prescri_bed in the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner being eligible applied for the said post under the category of 'Scheduled Caste'. Examination was held on 21 ", 22"d & 23rd July, 2013 and the petitioner also appeared in the same. The High Court of Manipur issued a Notification dated 17'" October, 2013 stating therein that none of the candidates had secured the minimum qualifying marks in the said Examination. The marks obtained by all the candidates who appeared in the said examination were uploaded on the website of the High Court of Manipur on 29'" January, 2014. From the result made available on the website of the High Court, the petitioner learnt that he had scored 52.8% and that he was eligible for the interview/viva-voce as per the G advertisement dated 15'" May, 2013 and Schedule "B'' of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005, (for short 'the MJS Rules') as he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community of the State ofManipur. The petitioner had given a representation on 4'" February, 2014 to the High Court for reviewing the Notification dated 17'" October, 2013 issued by the High Court of Manipur. In response to petitioner's representation, the High H SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] Court issued a corrigendum dated 7m February, 2014, modifying the said Notification by stating that only one candidate namely Shri Salam. Samarjeet Singh (SC), petitioner herein had secured the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination held on 21 ", 22°d and 23rd July; 2013 for recruitment to MJS Grade-I, under direct recruitment quota and had been found qualified for appearing in the viva-voce. lt was also stated therein that the date and time for interview would be notified in due course. Before conducting the viva-voce, the respondent High Court held a Full Court meeting on J 2th January, 2015 wherein one of the agenda was to prescribe "qualifying marks for interview (viva-voce)". After discussion on this agenda, the Full Court took a decision that ··no one shall be declared pass and selected for appointment unless he secures minimum 40% from the interview". 3. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Committee coinprising of the Chief Justice and two other Judges of the High Court ofManipuron 121h February, 2015. In the interview, the petitionerobtained 18.8 marks out of 50 marks i.e. 37.6%. Since the petitioner failed to secure the minimum marks of 40% vide Notification dated I 6'h February, 2015 issued by the High Court, the petitioner was declared "not selected". Aggrieved by the aforesaid Notification, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking a writ of c1:rtiorari to quash the Notification and another of mandamus directing the High Court to declare him appointed to MJS Grade-I with retro~pective effect. 4. In the Writ Petition, petitioner has stated that the marks obtained in the viva-voce should be merely added to the marks ()btained in the written examination to finalize the merit list and it was not permissible to have fixed a minimum· bench mark for the viva-voce. According to the petitioner, his non-qualification in the interview and the impugned Notification dated l 61h February, 2015 pursuant thereto are in violation of the law laid down by this Cqurt in P.K. RanUtc/1andra Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1984) 2 SCC 14land Uniesh Chandra Shukla v. Unio1i of India & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 721. It is further averred that before the commencement of selection process, the Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks only for written examination and that during the coi.1rsc of the selection process, it cannot change the criteria byadding an additional eligibility condition/requirement that the candidates shall secure miflimum ma:rJ;s in the intervie\v. 777 A B c D E F G H 778 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. 5. On notice, the respondents entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit. 6. Case of the respondent-High Court is that the entire selection process of the 2013 Examination has been conducted in a just and fair manner following the Rules prescribed under the MJS Rules and the action of th~ respondents is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Schedule 'B' of the MJS Rules prescribes the minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce as 40%. It is the case of the respondent-High Court that the minimum qualifying marks prescribed have been further clarified in its Full Court Resolution dated 12'h January, 20 I 5 before the viva-voce was conducted by the Interview Committee, so as to avoid any discrepancies. 7. In its counter affidavit, the respondent-High Court has further stated that the Recruitment Committee during the course of the interview of the petitioner, which lasted for half an hour, did individual assessment of the candidate in nine disciplines (each discipline carrying 5.55 marks). The total marks obtained by the petitioner from each member were 19.5, 19.0 and 18.0 totalling to 3 7.6%. The petitioner failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks of 40% in viva-voce as prescribed under the MJS Rules and hence he failed to qualify in the interview and is not entitled to the relief soi:ght for in the Writ Petition. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde submitted that the Full Court Resolution dated J 21h January, 2015 fixing cut-off marks - minimum 40% in the interview is an erroneous interpretation of Evaluation of Performance given in Schedule B of the 2005 Rules. It was further submitted that the action of the respondents to apply the criteria of minimum qualifying marks in the interview would amount to change in the criteria for selection after the selection process started. It was further submitted that the peti'tioner was never informed about the Resolution dated J 2tl' January, 2015 prescribing minimum marks to be secured in the interview, and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the contention that changing the 'rules of the game' during the course of selection process would vitiate the entire selection, reliance was placed upon Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 and K. Manjusree v. State o(Andltra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512. SALAM ·sAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 10. Per contl'a, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Schedule B of the MJS Rules stipulates minimum qualifying marks cumulatively for both written examination and viva-voce; and the said minimum qualifying marks so prescribed by the Rules were further clarified in the Full Court meeting dated 12th January, 2015 so as to avoid any discrepancies during the viva-voce conducted by the Interview Committee. It was submitted that the MJS Rules clearly stipulate ""that all necessary steps not provided for in the Rules for recruitment shall be decided by the Recruiting Authority" and while so, the Full . Court Resolution dated 12'h January, 2015, fixing minimum cut-off marks as 40% cannot amount to change in the rules of the game. It was contended that th_e respondent has not deviated from the Rules nor has it adopted any different criteria for the aforesaid selection process. 11. For filling up one "unreserved" post of District Judge (Entry Level), Grade-I in Manipur Judicial Service, by direct recruitment from the Bar, admittedly, recruitment process was set in motion by advertisement dated l 5'h May, 2013. Ge1ieral Instructions with respect to the scheme of recruitment were appended to the said advertisement. The said instructions in the advertisement were incorporated from Schedule 'B' 6 Competitive Examination ofManipur Judicial Services· Rules, 2-005. As per MJS Rules, the competitive examination comprises of two parts viz., -(i) written examination _comprising of three papers each carrying 100 marks total 300 marks; (ii) interview (viva voce) c~rrying 50 marks. General Instructions in Schedule 'B' Clause 1(3) read as under:- 3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:- 779 A B c D E All candidates who obtain sixty percent or more marks or F corresponding grade in the written examination shall be eligible for viva-voce examination. Provided that Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates who obtain fifty per cent or more marks or corresponding grade in the written examination shall be eligible for the G viva-voce examination. Selection of candidates shall be made on the basis of cumulative grade value obtained in the written and vivavoce examination. H 780 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. The object of the viva-voce examination under sub-rule (I) and (2) is to assess the suitability of the candidate for the cadre by judging the mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, skills, attitude, ethics, power of assimilation, power of communication, character and intellectual depth and the like of the candidate. All necessary steps not provided for in these rules for recruitment under these Rules shall be decided by the recruiting authority. The mode of evaluating the performance of Grading in the written and viva-voce examination shall be as specified below: EVALUATING PERFORMANCE IN COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION FOR JUDICIAL SELECTION The system Operates as follows:- !. The questions in the question paper may carry numerical marks for each question. · 2. The examiner may assign numerical marks for each subquestion which may be totaled up and shown against each full question in numbers. 3. The tabulator will then .convert the numerical marks into grades in a seven point scale with corresponding grade values as follows: ., Percentage of marks Grade· Grade Value Grade value 70% an.d above 0 7 65& to69% A-'- 6 60%to 64% A 5 55% to 59% ~-:- 4 50% to 54% B 3 45%to 49% C-r 2 40%to 44% c 1 . Belo\v4.0% F ,.0 SALAM'SAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR 781 AT IMPHAL & i\NR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 4. After converting the numerical marks of each question A into the appropriate grade according to the formula given in first column above the tabulator will re-convert to Grades obtained for each question to the Grade value according to the value given in the third column above. 6. What happens ifthere are several successful candidates obtaining the same grade and the available positions are fewer in number? How do you rank them to determine who is to be given the job? Of course, this situation can develop with numerical marking also where persons with one mark. cifhalf a mark difference are given advantage. This is unfair given .the fact that in acfoal practice this may happen because of the play of subjective elements on the part of the individual examiners. What is therefore recommended is a similar vigorous and objective grade value exercise for the viva-voce examination as well. 7. At the end of each day's interview the tabulator·will convert the numerical marks assigne9 to each category into grade and then to grade values. Thi,s will then be totalled up and the cumulative grade value average of each candidate interviewed will be obtained. 9. The final selection list will be readied by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written examination and the viva-voce examination. [Emphasis added] 12. The above instructions for Competitive Examination For Direct Recruitment of Grade-I Judicial Officer were inter alia incorporated in the 2013 advertisement. On a reading of Clause I (3 )-General Instructions in Schedule 'B', it is clear that the first respondent has reserved a residuary right in its favour to take necessary steps which ate not expressly included in the Rules. Before conducting the interview/vivavoce of the petitioner, the High Court held a Full Court Meeting on 121h January, 2015 wherein Agenda No.2 - "qLialifying marks for interview (viya-voce)" was taken up for discussion. After referring to the Rules-. . "Evaluating Performance in Competitive Examination for Judicial Selection" and also the table for converting numerical marks into grades, B c D E F G H 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. A the Full Court resolved that 40% marks would be the minimum qualifying marks for the interview/viva-voce. The resolution of the Full Court reads as under:- B MINUTES OF THE FULL COURT HELD ON 12.01.2015 IN THE CHAMBER OF HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Agenda No.2: Qualifying mark for interview (viva-voce) Resolution: A question as to what percentage would be the minimum qualifying marks for passing interview (vivavoce) is discussed. The following provisions of sub-rule C (3) ofSchedule-B ofManipur Judicial Service (MJS) Rules were taken into consideration: "All necessary steps not provided for i1; these Rules for recruitment under these Rules shall be decided by the recruitment authority. The mode of evaluating the D performance of Grading in the written ai1d viva-voce examination shall be as specified below: E F G H. The Full Court after considering the power conferred on the Recruitment Authority in the above states Rules and ·percentage of marks with Grade Value given above resolved that no one shall be declared _passed and selected for appointment unless he secures minimum 40% from the interview (viva-voce). , .. 13. Having regard to the submissions of the petitioner and the. respondent, the question falling for consideration is whether prescribing 40% marks as the minimum qualifying ri1arks for the interview after holding the written examination and before conducting the viva-voce was within the power of.the respondents; or whether it amounts to change in the criteria of selection in the midst of the selection process. 14. As seen from the MJS Rules - under the head - ''EVALUATING ·PERFORMANCE IN COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION FOR JUDICIAL SELECTION", a scheme of converting the numerical marks of each question into an appropriate grade, according to the formula given in the table and re-conve11ing into SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] grades, is stipulated. In the table, the percentage of marks and Grade prescribe that marks below40% is Grade 'F' which means 'Fail' and its Grade Value is '0'. The High Court has maintained that the Full Court decision prescribing minimum 40% marks in the interview/vivavoce was taken in order to introduce consistency in the criteria of evaluating performance of candidates in written examination and interview/viva-voce. Since the MJS Rules already stipulate that less than 40% marks is Gr11de 'F' with Grade.Value '0', it is implicit in the Rules that for a 'pass' in the examination, 40% minimum marks need to be obtained, though of course as per MJS Rules, this is for the cumulative Grade Value obtained in the written examination and the interview/viva-voce examination. Keeping in view the MJS Rules, in particular, the table converting numerical marks into Grades and the final Select List that is prepared by adding cumulative grade value obtained in the written examinatiQn and the interview/viva-voce, it is my considered view that fixing 40% for interview/viva-voce out of total marks of 50 is in consonance with MJS Rules and it will not amount to change in the criteri.a of selection in the midst of selection process. 15. Clause 1(3), General Instructions of the MJS Rules reserves a right in favour of the High Court which .enables the High Court to resort to the procedures, in addition to, what has been specifically laid down in the Rules. It provides that "all necessary steps not provided for in these Rules for recruitment under these Rules shall be decided by the Recruiting Authority". Having regard to the aforesaid provision, the High Court cannot be faulted with, in prescribing cut-off marks for the interview/viva-voce. The object of conducting interview/viva-.voce examination has been rightly stated in the Rules to assess suitability of the candidate by judging the mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and original exposition, intellectual depth and the like. The Rules further stipulate a vigorous and objective grade value exercise for the interview/ viva~voce examination as well. K~epfog in view the ,Rules and having regard to the seniority 6fthe post which is District Judge (Entry Level), the High Court cannot be faulted with for exercising its residuary right reserved in its favour by prescribing cut-off marks for th(! interview. 16. Contending that change in the norms for selection by introducing the minimum marks for interview during the, selection process would amount to change in the rules of the game, reliance was placed upon K. Manjusree v. State ofA.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 wherein this Court held 783 A B ·c D E F G H 784 A B c D E -F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. that selection criteria has to be adopted and declared at the time of commencement of the recruitment process. The rules of the game cannot be changed after the. commencement of the game. It was held that the . competent authority, if not restrained by the statutory rules, is fully competent to prescribe the minimum qualifying marks for written examination as well as for interview. But such prescription must be done at the time ofinitiation of selection process. Change ofcriteria of selection in the midst of selection process is not permissible . ..__ . 17. Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on Hemani Malhotra v. lligli Court o{Dellti (2008) 7 SCC 11. In Hemani Malltotra's case, the result of the written examination of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service ' was not announced by the High Court of Delhi, and individtial communication was sent to the petitioners therein, informing them of their selection forthe interview. Five candidates were called for interview on various occasions and were informed .of its postponement, i.e. the interview first scheduled for 20.09 .2006 was later deferred to 29.11.2006, 07.12.2006, 23.01.2007, 05.02.2007 and was finally conducted on 27.02.2007. Meanwhile on 13.12.2006, by a Full Court Resolution, minimum qualifying marks for the viva-voce was prescribed (55% for General Candidates and 50% for SC and ST candidates). In such facts and circumstances, prescribing minimum marks for the interview was struck down along the same lines as in the case of Mm1j11shree. · 18. Observing that prescribing minimum marks for the interview was not permissible after the written test was conducted, in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court o{Del/1i (2008) 7 SCC 11, it was held as under: "15. There is 110 manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate sho.uld also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the responden_t at viva-voce test was illegal. " SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 19. In Hemani Malhotra, candidates were called for interview on various dates but no interview was held and it was deferred. In the meanwhile minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for interview. This is not the case before us. In this case, prior to the interview which was conducted on l 2'h February, 2015, a Full Court meeting was held on J2