Therefore, it can safely be assumed the in the instant case, the Governor has acted in consultation and consonance with the High Court, which, on the administrative side, has opined the 70% percentage eligibility criteria and the three-year experience rule as prudent. Rule 5 of the MP Judicial Service Rules prescribe the High Court as the appointing authority and Rule 9 makes the decision on the High Court on questions of eligibility as final. Thus, essentially, any litigation/challenge that may take place before the High Court and/or the Supreme Court (preferably), has to make the High Court, the Governor and the State of Madhya Pradesh as parties.
The reason for the Supreme Court to be a preferential forum of challenge on the question of law is the intrinsic involvement of the Chief Justice of the High Court in the entire process of formulation of these Rules and the recruitment process. Understandably so, the recommendations that were made to the Governor are understood to have been made after by the Full Court of the High Court.
In any case, the Chief Justice has been granted the power of relaxation under the now amended Rule 19 of the MP Rules, making him/her an interested party in the adjudication of the matter. Thus, an adjudication before the High Court would be against the very principles of natural justice, as espoused and discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Assn v. Union of India (Recusal Matter), wherein the Pinochet Principle has been discussed in detail. As per this principle, if a judge is interested in a cause being promoted by one of the parties, then he is automatically disqualified from hearing the case. Since the Full Court of the High Court was consulted before the notification of the amendment, that disqualifies the entire High Court, including all the judges, from hearing any challenge to the notification.
Source: Barandbench
