| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS. |
| Introduction | Six writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Rules on minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test. |
| Factual Background | The recruitment process in Bihar and Gujarat challenges to specific rules. |
| Legal Issues | Contravention of All India Judges (2002), violation of Articles 14 and 16, vitiation of the selection process, non-consultation with Public Service Commission. |
| Applicable Law | Shetty Commission report, recommendation on viva voce assessment, Article 234 of the Constitution, Article 320. |
| Analysis | Shetty Commission’s recommendation does not support the petitioners’ argument, adherence to prescribed rules in Bihar and Gujarat, consultation with the High Court given primacy, and consultation with the PSC not mandatory. |
| Conclusion | Prescription of minimum marks for viva voce is not in contravention of law, selection process not vitiated, petitioners’ argument not supported by Shetty Commission’s recommendation, consultation with the PSC not mandatory, Gujarat Rules, 2005 valid as framed with consultation with the High Court. |
| Current Scenario | The case is ongoing, and a judgment has not been provided in the document. |
CASE SUMMARY – The case involves six writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test for appointment to the District Judiciary in Bihar and Gujarat. The petitioners allege a violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The case examines the factual background, legal issues, applicable law, and analysis of the petitioners’ arguments. The court concludes that the prescription of minimum marks for viva voce is not in contravention of the law and that the selection process in Bihar and Gujarat is not vitiated. The case is ongoing, and a judgment has not been provided in the document.
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Read Also–SECTION 302 CONVICTION UNSUPPORTED BY SECTION 149 DUE TO INADEQUATE EVIDENCE
