IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 514 OF 2015

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Respondent(s)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 712 OF 2015

O R D E R

Heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Maninder Singh,

learned Additional Solicitor General, along with Mr. A.

D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Registrar

General of the High Court of Delhi. We have also heard

Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for

the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 712 of 2015.

Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Writ Petition

in awarding marks to the candidates who appeared in the

preliminary and also main examinations for Delhi Judicial

Services, meant for 2014. Be it noted, after hearing the

learned counsel for the parties on 14.12.2015, the

following order was passed :-

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

Signature Not Verified

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 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 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 the aforesaid order, Justice

P.V.Reddy, formerly a Judge of this Court, revalued the

answer scripts and submitted a report, which was taken

note of vide order dated 10.03.2016 and on the basis of

the said report, the following directions were issued :-

".....

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 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 is submitted by Mr. A. D. N. Rao that

in the earlier Selection Committee,

nominee of the Lieutinant Governor was

there, who was earlier the Law Secretary

of the Delhi Government. In the meantime,

she has become a District Judge. In view

of the above said position, the Lieutinant

Governor shall nominate someone else as a

nominee so that the Selection Committee

can meet. We request the Lieutinant

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.....

The High Court of Delhi called twelve candidates, as

per the Report of Justice P. V. Reddy, for interview.

Out of twelve candidates, eleven candidates participated

in the interview and all of them were selected.

Normally, after such an exercise, the controversy that

had emerged in these writ petitions should have been

allowed to have a peaceful rest, but neither Mr. Prashant

Bhushan nor Mr.Sanjay Hegde would so accede.

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel and Mr. Sanjay

Hegde, learned senior counsel, have given certain

suggestions for future. The said suggestions were handed

over to Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor

General and Mr.A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel, appearing for

the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi.

Be it noted, six suggestions have been given and out

of six, two suggestions have been accepted by the

respondent. The suggestions which have been accepted,

are :-

a) In the Preliminary exams, the OMR

sheets be ordered to be filled up in pen and

not pencil;

(d)

The candidates

be provided a copy of

their answer scripts under the RTI and as

per two Supreme Court judgments of Central

Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v.

Aditya Bandopadhyay SC 2011) and Kerala

Public Service Commission Vs. State

Information Commission (SC 2016).

In course of hearing, the acceptability of the other

suggestions have been considered. Having heard the

learned counsel for the parties, apart from the

suggestions that have been accepted by the High Court, we

think the following suggestions should also be followed

by the High Court. They are :-

(i)

In the Preliminary examination, the names of

successful candidates be mentioned.

(ii)

In checking of the mains papers, the procedure laid

down in Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service

Commission, Allahabad & Anr.

(2007) 3 SCC 720

, Prashant

Ramesh Chakkarwar Vs. U.P.S.C. & Ors.

(2013) 12 SCC 489

and Sujasha Mukherji

2015 AIR SCW 1582

shall be kept in

view.

We are sure that the High Court, while conducting

examinations in future, shall keep the aforesaid

suggestions in view.

Before parting with the case, we may state that

suggestions have been given so that the candidates, who

participate in the examination must have intrinsic faith

in the system of examination and simultaneously, they

must also appreciate that a candidate, while appearing in

an examination, has his/her own limitation. Faith in an

institution and acceptance of individual limitation are

the

summum bonum

of a progressive civilised society. We

say no more on this score.

If this litigation has come to this end in such a

manner, it obligates us to put it on record our deep

appreciation for Justice P. V. Reddy, formerly a Judge of

this Court, who has devoted his time selflessly and also

not caused any kind of financial burden to the High

Court. We have said so, as we are disposed to think,

selfless service to institutions is written in red

letters in history and is remembered by the posterity.

It never gets washed away in the sands of time.

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed

of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

.......................J.

[ DIPAK MISRA ]

.......................J.

[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

New Delhi;

JULY 26, 2016.

REVISED

ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.4 SECTION PIL(W)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 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)

Date : 26/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Adv.

Mr. Anas Tanvir, Adv.

Ms. Kanishka Prasad, Adv.

Mr. Abdul Qadir, Adv.

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.

Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv.

Mr. Siddhartha K. Garg, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG

Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, Adv.

Mr. A. Venkatesh, Adv.

Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, Adv.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Applications for impleadment are rejected.

The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed

order.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

(Jayant Kumar Arora)

Court Master

(H.S.Parasher)

Court Master

(Signed order is placed on the file