TANIYA MALIK Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LAWS(SC)-2018-2-112
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 16,2018

Taniya Malik Appellant
VERSUS
Registrar General Of High Court Of Delhi,Lila Dhar V. State Of Rajasthan; 1981 4 Scc 159 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Arun Mishra, J. - (1.) The writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Delhi Judicial Service, 2015 Examination for which an advertisement was issued on 3.10.2015. 100 vacancies were advertised. The examination was to be held in two stages preliminary, thereafter, main examination (written) for selection of candidates for viva voce. Out of the 100 posts advertised, 68 were of the General Category; SC 12; ST 20; out of them 41, 7 and 17 were the backlog vacancies of respective categories. Two vacancies were reserved for physically handicapped (blind/low vision) and two vacancies for physically handicapped candidates (Ortho.). The appointments were to be subject to the outcome of W.P. (C) No. 514 of 2015 and C.A. No.1086 of 2013 pending in this Court and W.P. (C) No. 2828 of 2010 pending in the High Court of Delhi.
(2.) In Writ Petition[C] No.764 of 2017 Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, prayer has been made to reduce the minimum cut off marks of individual subjects from 40% to 33% and in the alternative, the Delhi High Court be directed to relax the criteria for calling for interview.
(3.) Petitioner has urged that result of the main examination was announced on 12.7.2017. In the preliminary examination that was held, out of 8534 candidates, 914 cleared it and they appeared in the main examination. As per the advertisement, the candidates were required to obtain 50% marks in aggregate and 40% in each subject in the main examination to be eligible to be called for interview. The result of the main examination was announced on 12.7.2017 and only 64 students, 58 from general category and 6 from reserved category were selected for viva voce test. The petitioner contended that normally for an interview, three times the number of incumbents are to be called as compared to the number of seats notified as apparent from past practice. The petitioner submitted a representation for rationalizing the minimum qualifying marks to 33% instead of 40%. However needful was not done.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.