SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH v. (Writ Pe~ition (C) No. 294 of2015)

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] B c D E F G 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H

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] ORDER

#1. Since there is a difference of opiJlion between us in view of the dissentingjudgments pronounced by us, the matter may be placed before appropriate Bench for final adjudication after obtaining permission of Hon'ble the Chief Justice oflndia. Divya Pandey Matter referred to appropriate bench. A B c D E p