In matters of appointment of Judicial Officers, opinion of a High Court is not a mere formality because a High Court is in best position to know about suitability of candidates as District Judges. Constitution therefore expects Governors to engage in ‘constructive constitutional dialogue’ with High Courts before appointing persons to a post of a District Judge under Article 233. Chief Justice A.N. Ray in State of Haryana v Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S., (1976) 2 SCC 977 observed, “Governor will act in harmony with recommendation of a High Court. If recommendation of a High Court is not held to be binding on State, consequences will be unfortunate. It is in public interest, State will accept recommendation of a High Court.”

In numerous decisions, this Court has emphasized importance of control which is wielded by High Courts over District Judiciary. State Government was plainly in error in finding fault and in concluding, decision of High Court amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, [Civil Appeal Nos. 2179-2180 of 2024].

_____

Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 makes it clear, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 in context of college admission may not have much bearing on recruitment for judicial vacancies.

While after participating in a recruitment process, unsuccessful candidates cannot turn around and challenge the recruitment process [Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486; Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171; Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309; Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 173], it is also settled, Principle of Estoppel cannot override law [Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University, (2022) 8 SCC 713].

Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. Union of India, (2019) 20 SCC 17 observed, “A candidate by agreeing to participate in a selection process only accepts prescribed procedure and not an illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail an incurable illegality or derogation of provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.”

Notably in Tanya Malik v. Registrar General of High Court, (2018) 14 SCC 129, in context of recruitment to a post of District Judge, it was held, prescribing minimum marks for an interview is not only desirable but also necessary. More recently, Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 254 held, “All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 had merely remarked, “there should be an objective method of testing suitability of Subordinate Judiciary“, without making any observation about desirability or otherwise of minimum cut-offs for viva voce generally.”

– Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Judicature at Patna, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 251 of 2016] decided on 06.05.2024.