The Delhi High Court has overturned a notice issued by its administrative side that awarded additional marks in two papers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Mains (written) examination. The court has ordered the redrawing of the selection list of candidates, stating that the administrative side of the court does not have the authority to alter the qualifying marks established by the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) Rules.
The bench, comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, emphasized that the DHJS Rules explicitly specify the qualifying marks, and the administrative side of the Delhi High Court has no discretion to modify them. The court stated that the inclusion in the list of qualified candidates should be based on those who have achieved the minimum threshold of 45 percent marks in each paper.
The court declared that the award of additional marks in the Law-III paper and the General Knowledge and Language paper of the DHJS Mains (Written) Examination is unsustainable and set aside the October 13, 2022 notice. Consequently, the court directed the Delhi High Court to redraw the selection list of candidates and take appropriate action.
The judgment was delivered in response to a petition challenging the notice issued by the high court on October 13, 2022, which awarded one additional mark in the Law-III paper and half a mark in the General Knowledge and Language paper to all candidates who appeared in the DHJS Mains (Written) Examination, 2022.
The petitioner argued that it is not within the purview of the high court to grant additional marks to candidates as it goes against the relevant rules and undermines the integrity of the selection process.
While the court set aside the notice, it rejected the challenge to the selection of a specific candidate for the higher judicial services. The court noted that the candidate in question had performed similar functions to those carried out by young advocates, including drafting pleadings, researching law, briefing senior advocates, and providing legal advice. The court found no flaws in the decision to accept the candidate's eligibility based on Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
