Você está na página 1de 7

LatestLaws.

com
WP(C) 514/15

1
ITEM NO.4

COURT NO.4
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SECTION PIL(W)
I N D I A

Writ Petition (Civil) No.514/2015


CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS
REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Respondent(s)

(With appln. (s) for directions and impleadment and office report)
WITH W.P.(C) No.712/2015
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and )
Date: 10/03/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR


Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha K. Garg, Adv.

WP 712/15

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.

Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.


Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR
Abdul Qadir, Adv.
Anas Tanvir, Adv.
Kanishka Prasad, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.

Annam D. N. Rao, AOR


Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Sudipto sircar, Adv.
Ankita Chadha, Adv.
Rahul Mishra, Adv.

Signature Not Verified


Digitally signed by
GULSHAN KUMAR
ARORA
Date: 2016.03.10
17:30:38 IST
Reason:

Mr. Saurabh D. Karan Singh, Adv.


Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, AOR
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR

LatestLaws.com
WP(C) 514/15

2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
On

2nd

November,

2015,

this

Court

had

passed

the

following order:In course of hearing of these writ petitions, a


suggestion was given to the learned counsel
appearing for the parties that in the obtaining
factual matrix of the case, there should be
nomination of an examiner, who should peruse the
answer scripts of the candidates and submit a
valuation report to this Court. Needless to say,
such a step is being thought of regard being had
to the facts of the present case.
Thereafter, on 14th December, 2015, this Court, after
hearing Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel and Mr. Sanjay
R.

Hegde,

learned

senior

counsel

for

the

petitioners

and

Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel for the High Court of Delhi,
had passed an order, the relevant portion of which reads as
follows:We have been apprised at the Bar that 659
candidates had qualified in the preliminary
examination and appeared in the main examination
and out of the same, 15 candidates have been
selected after facing the interview.
It is not
disputed
by
the
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents that the total vacancies are 80 in
number. Be that as it may. It is well settled
in law that if the suitable candidates are not
found, the employer is not obliged to fill up the
posts.
However, we desire to address the
grievance of the petitioners who had appeared in
the main examination and treat it as a special
case and direct as follows:
(a)
The candidates who have not been qualified
in the main examination to appear in the
interview, their papers shall be revalued on the
parameters of the marks obtained by the last
general category candidate who has been selected

LatestLaws.com
WP(C) 514/15

3
in the general category.
If there are further
reserved posts, the said parameter applicable to
Scheduled Castes who have been selected shall
also be adhered to in respect of the candidates
who belong to Scheduled Castes. We may hasten to
clarify, if there are no further posts in the
reserved category, the said exercise need not be
taken recourse to.
(b)
Regard being had to the fact that the
papers
have
initially
valued
by
the
six
examiners, we think it appropriate that a former
Supreme Court Judge should be requested to
revalue the answer papers as we have mentioned in
paragraph (a).
(c)
If any candidate is found fit on the test
applied as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b)
above, they shall be called for interview by the
same Board that had interviewed the earlier
candidates.
(d)
We request Justice P.V. Reddi, formerly a
Judge of this Court and the Former Chairman of
the Law Commission of India to accept the
assignment and carry out the exercise.
(e)
The High Court of Delhi is directed to
provide appropriate accommodation, preferably a
court room, and the requisite secretarial staff
for the purpose of valuation.
The High Court
shall facilitate the travelling of Justice P.V.
Reddi from his place of residence to the Delhi
High Court and provide a vehicle till he is in
Delhi.
(f)
Justice Reddi is requested to commence the
process on or before 10.01.2016.
As the Delhi
High Court has advertised for filling up rest of
the vacancies, we would request Justice Reddi to
make an effort to complete the valuation as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within six
weeks so that the advertised vacancies are in no
way affected.
(g)
The fee payable to Justice P.V. Reddi shall
be determined by this Court on the next date of
hearing.
(h)
When we have said that the selected
candidates whose answers script would be the
parameter, it clearly conveys that selection of

LatestLaws.com
WP(C) 514/15

4
the selected candidates shall not be unsettled.
The candidates who shall obtain the requisite
marks in comparison to the 15 candidates shall be
called
for
interview
and
in
the
ultimate
eventuate, if they are selected, they would not
be ranked senior to the candidates who have
already been selected and appointed.

In

pursuance

of

our

order,

Justice

P.V.

Reddi,

formerly a Judge of this Court and the former Chairman of the


Law Commission of India, has submitted an interim report.
Paragraph 5 of the said report reads as under:-

5.
As a result of this exercise, the following
12 (twelve) candidates have got qualifying marks
for being called for interview.

S.No.
in list
of 100

Code No.

Aggregate
marks
before
and after re-valuation.

1.

581

431/449

2.

40

412/433

4.

488

408/425

5.

41

407/429

6.

154

407/427

8.

559

406/427

9.

440

403/428

11.

472

402/434

12.

607

399/425

14.

24

395/435

20.

632

392/427

92.

13 (SC)

357/385

Their names are in Annexure I-A.

LatestLaws.com
WP(C) 514/15

5.1
The serial numbers given above are as per
the aggregate marks obtained originally.
The
Candidates who get qualified by reason of
addition of marks fall within the first 20 places
in the list of 100, excepting the SC candidate
who occupied 92nd place.
The highest number of
marks added (i.e. 40 out of 850) is in respect of
Sl. No.14 candidate (with code No.24) who gets
qualified now.
The addition of 40 marks
represents 4.7% increase.
For others, who have
got qualified now, 17 to 35 marks have been added
in the course of re-valuation.
5.2
The last candidate in the list of 100 has
got aggregate marks of 354 as against the minimum
prescribed aggregate of 425 marks, thereby
falling short of 71 marks. With the addition of
marks proposed, the said last candidate will be
getting the aggregate marks of 359 which is far
below the prescribed minimum.
The aggregate
marks obtained by 5 candidates above him/her i.e.
from 99 to 95 are as follows:

S.No.

Code No.

Aggregate
marks
before
and after re-valuation.

99

625

355/373

98

423

355/371

97

204

355/358

96

139

355/364

95

296

356/373

It is noticed that even after the additions of


marks, these last candidates figuring in the list
of 100 are nowhere near the qualifying marks.
Annexure I-A to the Report reflects the names, which
reads as under:

LatestLaws.com
WP(C) 514/15

6
Code No

Name

Rank
(Sl.No.)
in
order of aggregate
marks
obtained
before re-valuation.

581

Neha Priya

40

Nitish Gupta

488

Richa Sharma

41

Divya Malhotra

154

Mayank Mittal

559

Deepak Vats

440

Dhanshree Deka

472

Swati Gupta

11

607

Fahaduddin

12

24

Joshica Sood

14

639

Nishant Garg

20

Pragati

92

13 (SC)

We have given the code number and their names as it


is the admitted position at the Bar that the Code No.639 has
been erroneously mentioned, which should have been 632.
The

interim

report

of

Justice

P.V.

Reddi

is

accepted.
Regard being had to the aforesaid report, we request
the High Court of Delhi to hold the interview within four
weeks.

The Committee that had conducted the interview, is

requested to conduct the interview of the aforesaid twelve


candidates.

The Chief Secretary and the other authority, who

are supposed to participate in the interview, shall be guided

LatestLaws.com
WP(C) 514/15

7
about the dates fixed by the High Court and not take any kind
of excuse.

The candidates shall be intimated forthwith by

all possible means.


It
earlier

is

submitted

Selection

by

Committee,

Mr.

A.D.N.

nominee

Rao

of

that

the

in

the

Lieutenant

Governor was there, who was earlier the Law Secretary of the
Delhi Government.
Judge.

In the meantime, she has become a District

In view of the above said position, the Lieutenant

Governor shall nominate someone else as a nominee so that the


Selection

Committee

can

meet.

We

request

the

Lieutenant

Governor to nominate a suitable member within a week hence.


After conducting the interview, the results of the
interview shall be filed before this Court by 25th April,
2016.
Let the matters be listed on 2nd May, 2016.

(Chetan Kumar)
Court Master

(H.S. Parasher)
Court Master