Case BriefsSupreme Court


Supreme Court: In a case challenging the result of direct recruitment for Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service, the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi* and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., reversed the impugned order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting the challenge to the selection process.

The Court held that the discrepancy regarding incomplete question paper could not be an inadvertent human error and that somebody must be held responsible for it. However, considering that the exam was conducted after 4-5 years, the Court opined that a fresh selection process could not be initiated, and the endeavour of the Court should always be to salvage the selection as much as possible.

Grounds for Challenge

The appellant is one of the applicants who had participated in direct recruitment to Punjab Superior Judicial Service/Haryana Superior Judicial Service, had approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court on being disappointed by not being qualified in the written examination with his trifold grievance:

  • Though, Paper V (Criminal Law) was of 200 marks, at the commencement of the examination, the question paper handed over to the candidates contained only 4 questions (nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5) of 160 marks in total instead of 200 marks. It was only when the complaint was made by the candidates that, after approx. an hour after the commencement of the examination, question no.4 was handed over as a supplementary question paper and no extra time was given for answering the additional question.

  • Despite repeated demands, the respondents have failed to provide the marks obtained by the appellant in the written examination. Even the application filed by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 came to be rejected.

  • In Paper VI (General Knowledge) which was an objective type paper, there were no instructions and no OMR sheet was supplied and the candidates were called upon to make a circle out of the four multiple choices, and the question paper supplied had to be returned to the Invigilators.

  • No provisional answer key was uploaded.

Impugned Decision

All three objections raised by the appellant were repelled by the High Court at the motion stage, without calling for a written response from the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant had challenged the impugned order of the High Court by contending that the process adopted by the respondents was neither transparent nor fair and the written examination may be cancelled or at least the Paper V may be cancelled and be conducted afresh; only thereafter the merit list be declared of the candidates who qualified the main examination.

Interim Order

Noticeably, the Supreme Court, by an earlier order while calling upon the respondents for their written response, had permitted the respondents to continue with the interview process with a further direction that the result would not be declared in the meantime. Hence, the interview has been held and the result is pending declaration.

Analysis and Findings

Non-availability of OMR Sheet

With regard to the objection about Paper VI (General Knowledge), the Court observed that all instructions were made available to the candidates specifically indicated on the overleaf of the question paper and all the candidates had a common level playing field. Hence, in the absence of any material on record in rebuttal, the allegation was not sustainable and deserved to be rejected.

However, the Court added that to keep transparency in the process of holding examination, particularly in such cases where there is a multiple-choice question paper, it is always advisable that there shall be an OMR so that the question paper can be retained by each of the participants and after the examination is held, and a provisional answer key is to be uploaded inviting objections from the candidates and after collating such objections, the same be placed before a subject expert committee and the report of the committee shall be examined by the recruiting authority and thereafter the final answer key is to be uploaded.

Non-disclosure of Marks under RTI Act

So far as the marks of the written examination not being supplied to the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was concerned, the Court opined that as long as the process is not complete, the marks of the written examination are not to be uploaded or made available to the candidates and if it is being permitted, that will not be in the interest of the applicants. The Court said,

The disclosure of the marks in the main examination before it is finalised and the viva-voce is conducted would be against the principles of transparency, rather it will invite criticism of bias or favouritism.

Incomplete Question Paper

On the contention that only four questions were there in the original paper and question no. 4 of 40 marks was handed over to the candidates later on, the Court opined that the same could not be an inadvertent human error as being projected by the respondents. Calling it a serious lapse on the part of the recruiting authority, the Court held that somebody must be held responsible for it and such kinds of lapses certainly cannot be countenanced by the Court.

However, noticing that there was no objection in reference to the four questions (nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5) of Paper V (Criminal Law), the Court opined that it would be just to let the respondents evaluate question nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Paper V (Criminal Law) of 160 marks and exclude the question no.4 which was supplemented at a later stage of 40 marks while evaluating the marks secured by the candidates in Paper V. The Court expressed,

At this stage, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019 has been held after 4-5 years and since the fate of the examination 2019 is still sub-judice in this Court, fresh selection process could not have been initiated and if this irregularity pointed out can be possibly eliminated from the process of selection, particularly in the written examination, the endeavour of the Court should always be to salvage the selection as possible.


In the light of above, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside. Additionally, the Court directed that the result of the intervenor (Aashish Saldi), who had participated as against 10% quota in-service officer under Rule 7(3)(b) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2007 and had no lis with the present process, be declared and further action may be taken in accordance with Rules, 2007.

[Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1111 , decided on 29-08-2022]

*Judgment by: Justice Ajay Rastogi

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Counsel for the Appellant: Deepkaran Dalal;

Counsel for the Respondent: Abhimanyu Tewari;

Counsel for the Intervenor Aashish Saldi: Kaveeta Wadia.

*Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A division bench of Akil Kureshi CJ and Madan Gopal Vyas J. dismissed the petition stating that nothing would come in the way of the petitioner in seeking inter-district transfer if the Government rules and regulations recognize any such policy.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner was selected for the post of PTI Grade-II by the State Government in Jhunjhunu district. It appears that the select list was reshuffled on account of litigation and consequent Court orders. The State Government thereupon issued a circular to give effect to the reshuffling of the select list wherein it states that those candidates, who on account of such reshuffle are being included in the select list, would be called for counseling for allotment of appropriate district. This counseling would not be necessary for the PTI already appointed. Some aggrieved persons filed Civil Writ Petition which was dismissed permitting those petitioners to make a representation to the authorities. The authorities thereupon issued a fresh circular that those representations in which the request for movement within district are made, may be considered. However, the request for inter-district transfers would not be accepted. The aggrieved petitioner thereupon approached the High Court contending that less meritorious persons have been accommodated in Alwar district, whereas she is sent to Jhunjhunu. The present appeal was filed by the original petitioner to challenge the impugned judgment.

The Court relied on judgment Nirmla Jat v. State of Rajasthan , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5753/2020, decided on 14-9-2020 and observed that the question of appointment or absorption in particular district, division or zone at the time of recruitment is essentially for the convenience of the selected candidate but this always is subject to administrative exigencies. No person has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. The selections and recruitments must attain finality. Posting orders which are consequential to such selection and recruitment also must not be allowed to be raised after a reasonable period of time. Accepting such request for inter-district transfer can lead to chain reaction and at times considerable administrative difficulties.

The Court observed and held that the transfer liability of the cadre of teachers was reckoned division-wise. Accordingly, the observations were made for the movement of teachers within division. In the present case, we are concerned with the post of PTI Grade-III where the cadre is maintained district-wise. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the observations and directions of the Court in the case of Nirmala Jat (supra) therefore have to be suitably modified for adoption in the present case. Thus, the petitioner did not have choice of inter-district transfer and the communication of the authority dated 12.10.2021 not accepting any such representation for inter-district transfer was correct.

[Soniya Burdak v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 412, decided on 04-02-2022]


For Appellant(s): Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-Judges Bench Comprising of L. Nageswara Rao*, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, JJ., upheld the controversial appointment of Mr. DInkar Gupta as DSP, State of Punjab.

Aggrieved by the order of the Governor of Punjab by which one Mr. Dinkar Gupta was appointed as Director General of Police (DGP), the appellants had filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of appointment on the ground that preparation of the panel for selection of DGP was in contravention of the judgement in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India and directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the State of Punjab to conduct selection for the post of DGP afresh. However, in appeal, the judgement of the Tribunal was set aside by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

The grievance of the appellant was that the Draft Guidelines for the appointment were not in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court. The appellant also alleged one of the members of the Empanelment Committee constituted by the UPSC to finalise a panel of shortlisted candidates for selection for holding bias against him.

Factual Analysis

So far as the selection and minimum tenure of DGP was concerned, the had Court directed that the UPSC shall empanel three senior-most officers of the Department for promotion to the rank of DGP on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force and the State Government should select the DGP from amongst the officers empanelled by the UPSC.

By way of implementation of the directions issued by this Court in Prakash Singh’s case, UPSC framed Draft Guidelines for empanelling officers for appointment as DGP. Selection, according to the Guidelines, shall be meritbased and inclusion in the panel shall be adjudged on the basis of ‘very good’ record and range of experience for heading the police force. The Committee was obligated to make assessment of the annual confidential reports of the officers with reference to the last ten years preceding the date of meeting of the Committee.

Validity of Draft Guideline          

According to UPSC, the range of experience was a constituent part of the component of merit. In respect of selection to the post of DGP, five core policing areas had been identified to assess the range of experience of the officers concerned for the last 10 years, which were:- A. Intelligence B. Law and order C. Administration D. Investigation E. Security.

The contention of the Appellant was that the criteria fixed in Prakash Singh’s case were not followed in letter and spirit by the Empanelment Committee of UPSC while conducting selection to the post of DGP. Admittedly, appellant was senior to respondent 4 and could not have been superseded by the Empanelment Committee of the UPSC.

The Draft Guidelines which have to be scrupulously followed by empanelment committees stipulate that a selection should be on the same criteria. In the instant case, Empanelment Committee decided to assess the range of experience of officers to head the police force in the State of Punjab after considering the peculiarities of the State. Identification of five core policing areas out of a domain of twenty policing areas could not be said to be an arbitrary exercise of power as discretion was given to the empanelment committees to select the core policing areas by taking into account the prevailing situation in the States.

Noticeably, by the order dated 13-03-2019, the judgment of Prakash Singh’s case was clarified by the Court and the UPSC was directed to prepare the panel purely on the basis of merit. The recommendation of the names of 12 officers for consideration was on the basis of completion of thirty years’ service in the cadre of ADGP. Length of service as mentioned in Prakash Singh’s case was taken into account for determination of zone of consideration. The other two factors namely, good record of service and range of experience on the basis of length of service was assessed by the Empanelment Committee. Inter se merit of the candidates was evaluated according to the objective criteria followed by the Committee and a panel of three officers had been prepared in the order of seniority. Observing that the Appellant was found to be inadequate for inclusion in the panel in the range of experience for core policing areas, the Bench stated that the preparation of panel by the Empanelment Committee was in compliance of the Draft Guidelines, which were in conformity with the directions issued by the Court in Prakash Singh’s case.

Allegation of Bias

The appellant argued that the empanelment and appointment of Respondent 4 as DGP was vitiated by bias as respondent 5 who was a member of the Empanelment Committee was prejudiced against the Appellant due to the report filed by the Appellant before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which Respondent 5 was found to be involved in criminal activities. The appellant submitted that, on earlier occasions Respondent 5 had recused himself in matters relating to the Appellant and, therefore, he ought not to have participated in the selection process.

Noticeably, the incumbent DGP of the State is a member of the empanelment committee according to the Draft Guidelines issued by the UPSC and the Guidelines were issued in compliance with the directions given by the under Article 142 of the Constitution, which was well-known and in public domain. Therefore, the Bench opined that the position that Respondent 5, being the DGP, would be a member of the Empanelment Committee was within the knowledge of the Appellant and ignorance of that factum must be rejected as a mere pretence. Moreover, the fact that respondent 5 was member of the Committee was even published in the Hindustan Times, considering that the appellants were not laymen, but senior police officers aspiring for the appointment to the top police position in the State, the Bench held that they were estopped from challenging the recommendations made by the Committee, given the fact that they had taken a calculated chance, and not protested till the selection panel was made public. Applying the ratio of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486, the Bench stated,

“When a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted.”


In the light of above, the Bench held that the High Court did not commit any error by setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal and upholding the selection and appointment of Respondent 4 as DGP of State of Punjab. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.

[Mustafa v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1063, decided on 16-11-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 

Appearance by:

For the Appellants: Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Counsel and P.S. Patwalia, Senior Counsel

For UPSC: Aman Lekhi, Additional Solicitor General

For State of Punjab: Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Counsel for the State of Punjab

For Respondent 4: Maninder Singh, Senior Counsel

For Respondent 5: Shyam Divan, Senior Counsel

*Judgment by: Justice L. Nageswara Rao



Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J., decided a petition which was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17-04-2021 passed by Dean (Academics), AIIMS, Rishikesh wherein petitioner’s representation, made pursuant to the order of this Court passed in WPMS No.794 of 2021, had been rejected.

Petitioner had applied for admission in PG Diploma Course, pursuant to a notification issued by AIIMS Rishikesh in the month of August, 2020 sand election for admission to said PG Diploma course was to be made through a competitive examination. He was one of the 13 candidates shortlisted for the interview; he appeared in the interview but was not given admission. There were 05 seats available in the said course namely, PG Diploma in Respiratory Medicine, but only 04 seats were filled and since petitioner was the 5th candidate in order of merit, therefore, he had filed the writ petition which was disposed of by order dated 01-04-2021 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and the Competent Authority in AIIMS, Rishikesh was directed to take decision thereupon within a period of two weeks. Dean (Academics), AIIMS, Rishikesh had rejected petitioner’s representation vide order dated 17-04-2021 thus the instant petition was filed.

The Court observed that out of the 13 short-listed candidates, only 12 appeared for interview and out of those 12 candidates, 04 were given admission in PG Diploma (Respiratory Medicine) and 1 seat was still lying vacant and it was also an admitted position that the petitioner stands 5th in order of merit in the selection for admission to the aforesaid course. The petitioner was not given on the ground that he had scored only 17.47 percentile in the selection process but the Court observed that the impugned order is silent as to whether there was any condition regarding cut-off marks stipulated before commencement of selection process and in this situation the admission cannot be denied.

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 17-04-2021 and directed the Dean (Academics), AIIMS, Rishikesh to reconsider petitioner’s representation on merits and pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

[Laxman Singh Brijwal v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 485, decided on 19-05-2021]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr Pankaj Tangwan

Counsel for the respondents: Mr Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Mr Lalit Sharma

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a case where a man was tried for and later acquitted from charges under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah, JJ held that the apprehension that a stigma shall continue with the name of the appellant is misconceived, as stigma, if any, is already over by acquittal.

The appellant had challenged the order of the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Department declaring him ineligible for being appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and had sought reconsideration by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. On this the Court said that the mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground for reconsideration of his application by the High Court.

Brief facts of the case

The appellant submitted an online form after the High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 09.03.2017 inviting applications for recruitment in the post of District Judge(Entry Level) in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service by Direct Recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates.

  • The appellant after being declared successful in the Main Examination was called for interview.
  • The appellant received a communication on 06.04.2018 from the Law and Legislative Department informing that he has been selected for the post of District Judge (Entry Level). He was asked to appear before the Medical Board for the health tests.
  • On 02.07.2018, the copy of the FIR filed against him by his wife in the year 2014 under Section 498/406/34 IPC was asked for.
  • On 14.09.2018, order was issued by the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Department declaring the appellant ineligible and directing for deletion the name of the appellant from the select list.
  • The Government also issued a Gazette notification deleting the name of the appellant from the main select list.
  • On 18.09.2019, the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him in the aforementioned criminal case registered against him by his wife.

Arguments advanced before the Supreme Court

It was argued before the Court that appellant having disclosed the lodging of FIR against him has not concealed any fact before the High Court and he, having been selected on merit, was entitled to be appointed. On the subsequent acquittal of the appellant on 18.09.2019 his case for appointment was to be reconsidered by the High Court and the High Court committed an error in not considering the appellant for appointment. The candidature of the appellant could not have been cancelled merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case.

“The appellant could not have been deprived of the employment after acquittal. There was no other material on record to indicate that antecedent or conduct of the appellant was not upto the mark. The High Court ought to have sent the matter back before the Higher Judicial Service and Examination-cum-Selection Committee for reconsideration.”


On validity of the order declaring the appellant ineligible

The Court, however, noticed that the present is not a case where the name of the appellant was deleted in the select list on the ground of any concealment of criminal case against him. The name of the appellant was included in the select list which was forwarded to the State. The State after character verification submitted a report which report was considered on 18.07.2018 by the Administrative Committee (Higher Judicial Service) and Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee and a resolution was taken that due to pendency of the case under Section 498A, 406-34 IPC on the basis of complaint filed by the wife, the appellant is not considered suitable for being appointed to the post of District Judge.

Stressing of the requirement that after declaration of the merit list the candidates have to be given appointments in time bound manner so that they may join the respective posts, the Court noticed that on the date when the Committee declared the appellant unsuitable, criminal case against him under Section 498A and 406 IPC was pending which was registered on a complaint filed by the appellant’s wife.

“The mere inclusion in the select list does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate. The employer has right to refuse appointment to the candidate included in the select list on any valid ground. The persons who occupy Judicial Service of the State are persons who are expected to have impeccable character and conduct.”

The character verification report was received from the State where pendency of the criminal case was mentioned which was the reason for the Committee to declare the appellant unsuitable.

On reconsideration of application by High Court after acquittal of the appellant

“In the present case the acquittal having taken place after the close of recruitment process, there was no question of examining the acquittal order by the High Court at the time of finalizing the selection process.”

The Court noticed that there can be no dispute that in event it is found that decision by which the candidature of a candidate is rejected is arbitrary or actuated by malafide such decision can be interfered by the Constitutional Courts. However, the decision of Examination-cum-Section and Appointment Committee for holding the appellant unsuitable was based on the relevant consideration, i.e., a criminal case against the appellant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was pending consideration which was registered on a complaint filed by the wife of the appellant.

“Such decision of the Committee was well within the jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable. The mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground to turn the clock backward.”

On stigma attached with appellant’s name

It was argued before the Court that due to deletion of the name of appellant from select list a stigma is attached to him, for removal of which this Court may issue notice in this SLP. The Court, however, said that the appellant having already been acquitted by the judgment dated 18.09.2019 stigma of criminal case has already washed out and the criminal case having resulted in acquittal no stigma is attached to the appellant’s name on the above ground.

[Anil Bhardwaj v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 832, 13.10.2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J. by the petitioner who was working on deputation against the order whereby his services were repatriated to the parent department.

Petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the nature of deputation in the instant case was different from the normal transfer on deputation. It was only after selection of petitioner that he was appointed on deputation. Thus, petitioner could not have been repatriated.

Petitioner submitted that the instant petition filed was covered under the decision passed in the case of Ram Avtar Singh v. State of M.P., WP No.13505 of 2018, where the impugned order of repatriation was set aside and Court made clear that the order would not come in the way of respondents to repatriate petitioners in accordance with law.

High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case set aside the impugned order of repatriation in the light of the order passed in the aforementioned case and since impugned order of repatriation was quashed petitioner was allowed to work at his deputation. Therefore, this petition was allowed. [Rajendra Prasad Nayak v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 258, dated 14-02-2019]

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

High Court Of Uttaranchal: A Division Bench comprising of  U.C. Dhyani and  Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. dismissed a challenge against the appointment of State Chief Information Commissioner. The main challenge in the petition was that the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner has become the ‘dumping ground’ for retired bureaucrats, who are rewarded for their loyalty to the State Government.

The question posed in the writ petition is – whether the state government can defy the mandate of the Union legislature and the spirit of the RTI Act by appointing Chief Information Commissioner to favour certain officers, who have retired, or are due to retire in the near future?

The contention put up by the petitioner is that according to Section 15(1) of RTI Act, the requirement of the appointment of a retired bureaucrat is not a necessity, rather it prescribes the requirement is of a person shall be eminent in public life with wide knowledge and experience in particular field.

Further, it has been stated by the Hon’ble Court, that, Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the government in the choice of person to be appointed as long as the person satisfies all the eligibility criteria along with the process prescribed. Therefore, it has been observed by the court that the writ of quo Warranto cannot be issued unless there is a clear violation of law and here clearly the appointment has is not contrary to the statutory rules.

Concluding the judgment, the Hon’ble Court while agreeing to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of appointments to higher echelons, fairness should be the hallmark of selection, it does not find any illegality or irregularity in the appointment of the State Chief Information Commissioner, it also hoped that in the future, the persons of eminence will be drawn from these walks of life also. [Chandra Shekhar Kargeti v. State Of Uttarakhand; 2018 SCC OnLine Utt 29, order dated 10-01-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

On 09.08.2017, a ‘concept note’ on a Central Selection Mechanism (CSM) for the lower judiciary was notified on the Supreme Court website afterthe 3-judge bench of JS Khehar, CJ and AK Goel and AM Khanwilkar, JJ, on 04.08.2017, asked the Registry to prepare and send the note to the Registrars of all the High Courts. The said direction was given after the Court initiated suo motu proceedings after a letter dated 28.04.2017 was written by the Secretary of the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice (Government of India), to the Supreme Court of India.

According to the ‘Concept Note’, under CSM, the candidates will write a single common examination, namely the District Judges Recruitment Examination (DJURE), and be considered for selection in all the States for which they fulfill the eligibility criteria. Here are the key points from the Concept Note

Why a Central Selection Method?

  • Conducting DJURE would mean having a consistent and rigorous selection process
  • Fixed time-table of holding such examinations will enable an advocate who is unsuccessful in a given year, to try harder and make further attempts in a planned manner for the subsequent years.
  • More candidates will appear for the examination, of which the best eventually make the grade and qualify as central service officers.
  • CSM will provide a regular pool of meritorious candidates to recruitment and selection bodies for State Judicial Services across India.
  • District Judges Recruitment Examination (DJRE) will eradicate uncertainty and irregularity by providing fix syllabus and schedule of examination.

Effect on existing structure of Judiciary

  • DJURE would not compromise the autonomy of the States in regulating the terms of recruitment or the conditions of service. All existing rules regarding reservation, eligibility and service conditions in the States would continue to be in force.
  • DJURE will neither recruit, nor appoint candidates as District Judges. It will merely present a pool of candidates from whom judges can be recruited, after an interview with the selection authority. The actual prerogative of appointment of any judges to State Judicial Services would remain with the Governor of a State, as prescribed under the Constitution of India.
  • DJURE will not alter the existing eligibility criteria in different States. The eligibility criteria and the rules/regulations for reservation prevalent in the States will remain intact. Specific requirements of each State in terms of testing knowledge in local laws or local language will also be protected.

Structure of DJURE: DJURE will be split into 4 law papers and interview.

Authority conducting DJURE

  • 5-member Central Selection Committe consisting of one chairperson and four other members, all nominated by the CJI, and may include sitting or retired judges. The four members shall preferably represent each of the four regions of the country.
  • Secretariat for conducting the DJURE written exams, and constituting Interview Boards for conducting interviews for different state judicial services
  • Interview Boards solely responsible for conducting the interviews of candidates who have qualified on the basis of the National and State ranks

Funding: CSM will be funded by the Central Government, keeping in mind the all India nature of the examination.

Bi-annual DJURE: Concept Note suggests that the timeline of the DJURE should begin by Intimation of Vacancies by the High Court to the Secretariat on March 15 every year and should conclude with the publication of results on August 31. The 6-month timeline will allow CSC to conduct DJURE twice a year.

To read the full ‘Concept-note’, click here.