LatestLaws.

com
WP(C) 514/15
1

ITEM NO.4 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 (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. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.

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

For Respondent(s) Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR

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

Mr. Saurabh D. Karan Singh, Adv.

Signature Not Verified Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, AOR
Digitally signed by
GULSHAN KUMAR
ARORA
Date: 2016.03.10
17:30:38 IST
Reason: 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. Code No. Aggregate marks before

in list and after re-valuation.
of 100

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

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 1

40 Nitish Gupta 2

488 Richa Sharma 4

41 Divya Malhotra 5

154 Mayank Mittal 6

559 Deepak Vats 8

440 Dhanshree Deka 9

472 Swati Gupta 11

607 Fahaduddin 12

24 Joshica Sood 14

639 Nishant Garg 20

13 (SC) Pragati 92

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

earlier Selection Committee, nominee of the Lieutenant

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 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) (H.S. Parasher)

Court Master Court Master