HC quashes plea challenging Delhi Judicial Services Examination result [Read Judgment]

The Delhi HC in, NISHANT KHATRI AND ANR v. DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL quashed the petition which challenged the result of the written exam for Delhi Judicial Services dated 13th January 2020 and the viva schedule thereafter.

The contention of the petitioner challenging the said result was that the lowering of minimum qualifying marks i.e. 60% in Preliminary Examination to 58% is ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Petitioner placed its reliance on Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 which explicitly stated that the minimum qualifying marks for the preliminary examination for the unreserved category shall be 60% and that can not be reduced by respondents or the court.

Secondly, the petitioner stated that the examination process followed by the respondents was arbitrary and was filled with bias as they disclosed the ‘Mains’ marks which cause a bias in the minds of the interview for the higher scoring candidates. Such practice of disclosing marks is not followed in exams like UPSC etc.

The bench comprising of HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN and  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA, stated that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition. One of the petitioners did not participate in the exam and one of them did not qualify despite lowering the marks. Therefore the petitioners are not the one aggrieved.

The court however made an interesting observation viz-a-viz Public Interest Litigation while relying on Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. vs. C.K. Rajan & Ors. and stated that “Undoubtedly, the rule of locus standi is relaxed in case of public interest litigation, but that is to be done only to ensure that the poor or socially and economically handicapped are not denied their rights.”  While quashing the petition, the court went on to say that those who have succeeded in the examination and are aggrieved by the manner of conduct of the examination are free to approach the court by adopting adequate legal measures.

Case details

W.P. (C) 1553/2020

Counsel for petitioner- Self

Counsel for respondent- Mr.Amit Bansal, senior standing counsel with Ms.Seema Dolo, Advocates.

Coram- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN and  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA