Delhi High Court
Salil Maheshwari vs High Court Of Delhi, Th: Registrar ... on 4 May, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) 2636/2012
SALIL MAHESHWARI ... Petitioner
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
TH: REGISTRAR GENERAL ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr R. K. Handoo with Mr Yoginder Handoo, Mr Aditya
Choudhary, Mr Manish Shukla and Mr S. P. Pandey
For the Respondent : Mr Chetan Lokur for Mr Viraj R. Datar
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that he has
not found place in the revised list of candidates eligible to take the main
examination for the Delhi Judicial Service in respect of which the
preliminary examination was held in 2011. The petitioner sat for the said
examination. The result was declared on 23.12.2011. The petitioner had
obtained 119.25 marks. Because the marks of the last qualified candidate
were 123.5, the petitioner did not qualify for participating in the main
examination.
2. After the result had been declared on 23.12.2011, several writ
petitions had been filed before this Court calling into question the question
paper for the said preliminary examination. Those writ petitions were
disposed of by a judgment in Gunjan Sinha Jain v. Registrar General,
High Court of Delhi [WP(C) 449/2012] and other connected matters on
09.04.2012. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:-
"81. We must harmonize the requirement of the second
condition with the requirement of not disturbing the candidates
who have been declared as qualified as also with the
requirement of justice, fairness and equity insofar as the other
candidates are concerned. We feel that this would be possible:
(1) by re-evaluating the OMR answer sheets of all the
general category candidates on the lines
summarized in the table set out above;
(2) by selecting the top 230 candidates in order of
merit subject to the minimum qualifying marks of
112.8; and
(3) by adding the names of those candidates, if any,
who were earlier declared as qualified but do not
find a place in the top 230 candidates after re-
evaluation.
In this manner, all persons who could legitimately claim to be
in the top 230 would be included and all those who were earlier
declared as having qualified would also retain their declared
status. Although, the final number of qualified candidates may
exceed the figure of 230, this is the only way, according to us,
to harmonize the rules with the competing claims of the
candidates in a just and fair manner. A similar exercise would
also have to be conducted in respect of each of the reserved
categories. The entire exercise be completed by the
respondents within a period of two weeks. Consequently, the
Main Examination (Written) would also have to be re-
scheduled and, to give enough time for preparation, we feel that
it should not be earlier than the 26.05.2012."
(underlining added)
3. Consequent upon the re-evaluation done by the respondents in terms
of the directions given by us in the said judgment dated 09.04.2012, another
list has been prepared which was declared on 21.04.2012. The petitioner
herein does not fall within the top 230 candidates, as indicated in sub-
paragraph (2) set-out in paragraph 81 of the said decision. In fact, the
petitioner, on re-evaluation, got 118.5 marks. The list of top 230 candidates
ended at 122.50. Apart from these 230 candidates, only those candidates,
who were earlier declared as qualified but did not find a place in the top
230 candidates after the said re-evaluation, were also included in the list of
persons qualified for appearing in the main examination.
4. There are some persons who had earlier been declared as qualified in
the first round, whom we have not disturbed by way of the decision dated
09.04.2012, who may have got marks less than 122.50 on re-evaluation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is claiming parity with them.
Unfortunately, we do not see as to how the petitioner can claim parity with
those candidates inasmuch as the petitioner did not qualify in the first round
or even in the second round. In any event, the petitioner does not fall
within the top 230 candidates after re-evaluation and, therefore, we do not
see as to how he can have a legitimate claim to appear in the main
examination. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
the case of C. Channabasavaih and Others v. State of Mysore and Others:
AIR 1965 SC 1293, is clearly not applicable to the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
5. Consequently, we see no merit in the present writ petition and the
same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Dasti.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
MAY 04, 2012/SR
