Mridula Sharma vs The Registrar General, Delhi High ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3123 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                  Decided on : 16.07.2014

+      W.P.(C) 4306/2014, C.M. No. 8647/2014 (for exemption)

       MRIDULA SHARMA                       ..... Petitioner
               Through : Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma and Ms. Shruti
               Tiwari, Advocates.

                          versus

       THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT
                                                  ..... Respondent

Through : Sh. Syed. A. Saud, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)

% C.M. No. 8647/2014 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4306/2014

1. The petitioner claims a direction to the respondent - the Delhi High Court to set-aside the results of the examination conducted in January 2013 for the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Court Master (hereafter referred to as "the AO(J)/C.M."

2. Briefly the facts are that the Delhi High Court administration had called for applications from in-house candidates eligible to appear

W.P.(C) 4306/2014 Page 1 in the test to fill the post of AO(J)/C.M. The petitioner, a Senior Judicial Assistant (SJA) was entitled to apply and did so. Her grievance in these proceedings is that the examination held in January 2013 - which comprised of two written papers, contained questions which were out of syllabus. For an appreciation of the grievance, it would be, at this stage, appropriate to extract the relevant part of the notice dated 27.11.2012 calling for applications:

"The following syllabus has been prescribed for the posts of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Court Master:-

       "Written Paper-I"                        100 Marks

       Time three hours

               (i)     High Court Rules and Orders Vol.V.
               (ii)    Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967.


       Written Paper-II

       Time three hours

               (i)     Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Sections only)
               (ii)    Court Fees Act, 1870 (Sections only)

(iii) Civil Procedure Code:- Part-VII (Appeals) and Part-VIII (Reference, Review and Revision) Order 5, 22, 32, 41 and 44.

(iv) Criminal Procedure Code: Sections 28 to 31 and 372 to 405."

3. The results of the examination were declared some time in April 2013 and apparently most of the posts were filled after interviews of the successful candidates were concluded. The petitioner claims that

W.P.(C) 4306/2014 Page 2 two questions, which were part of the second written paper were out of syllabus, i.e.;

"3. A files a suit for injunction concerning the property valued Rs.1.5 crores. The relief of injunction is valued for Rs.200 and court fee is paid on the relief claimed. Can this High Court entertain such a suit? While scrutinizing the suit what important points are to be checked?

               XXXXXX            XXXXXX
               XXXXXX

5. Does an appeal lie against an order passed by Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC as provided under Appeals from Orders? If not, what is the remedy and where does it lie?"

4. The petitioner apparently represented against this grievance. A copy of the representation is part of the record. However, it contains no date. The respondent urges that there is no acknowledgement by the High Court of having received such representation. It is further a matter of record that some time in May 2014, she sought for a copy of her answer sheet in the second written paper; the query was answered on 06.06.2014.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that since two questions- Question Nos. 3 and 5 - were not part of the syllabus, she received low scores which were the reason for her non-selection. It is submitted that this is arbitrary because, had the High Court establishment clearly indicated that the subject matter of the question which were actually asked, were part of the syllabus, candidates such as the petitioner and the others who were similarly unsuccessful would have been better

W.P.(C) 4306/2014 Page 3 prepared. It was submitted that as against the low scores registered, such as 4 marks in respect of these questions, the petitioner fared very well, having secured 8 or 10 marks in each of the other questions.

6. It is apparent from the narrative that the petitioner has approached this Court complaining of arbitrariness in the conduct of the written examination for the post of AO(J)/C.M. which was held in January, 2013. The claim that she represented to the High Court is, in the opinion of this Court, suspect, to say the least. It is noted that the petition is bereft of any particulars, either in the list of dates or in the body of pleadings as to when the representation was made, articulating this grievance. If this aspect is kept in mind in the backdrop of the fact that the examination took place in early January 2013 and results declared in April 2013, what emerges is that the petitioner is seeking to articulate a grievance that is hit by delay and laches. To compound the matters further, another advertisement has been issued and the recruitment process is underway in respect of the same post of AO(J)/C.M. for the vacancies which have arisen subsequently. The examination for the subsequent advertisement took place in the end of June 2014 and the results are awaited. This subsequent development, in the opinion of this Court, is sufficient to defeat the petitioner's claim because if the present grievance were to be entertained, necessarily the previous selections would have to be opened-up and thus lead to uncertainty about the number of vacancies and the ongoing recruitment process itself.

W.P.(C) 4306/2014 Page 4

7. Apart from the issue of delay, the Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the petitioner's complaint. The job profile of AO(J)/C.M. would necessarily entail examination of petitions and matters filed in the Registry of the Court. Now, it is not disputed that the candidates eligible to compete for the post are in-house employees who have served for 10 years in a desk job. They should have familiarity with the basic procedure of the Registry. This would include examination of the files to ascertain whether the correct Court Fees are filed as well as prima facie, whether the litigant is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction which he claims. These aspects are to be kept in mind. The fact that certain provisions of the Court Fees Act or, for that matter, specific provisions of Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) were not spelt-out, cannot be fatal to the entire examination itself. We notice that the written syllabus did mention Part-VII of the CPC - Appeals. This includes Section 104 which provides for "Appeals from Orders." That provision itself indicates that it is not exhaustive and that one has to examine the rules in the Schedule, i.e. the accompanying order - Order XLIII. Considering that the High Court has an Original Side where appeals from orders lie routinely to the Division Bench, familiarity of the candidates with these aspects is essential.

8. In this regard, the Court is not persuaded with the submissions of the petitioner's counsel based upon the Division Bench ruling in Gunjan Sinha Jain v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi 2012 (129) DRJ 361. That was a case where the questions posed in the

W.P.(C) 4306/2014 Page 5 examination and the choice of answers provided were not in order, since more than one correct answer could be given. No such infirmity is discernible in this case. The complaint is that two questions were "out of syllabus". Likewise, the reliance placed upon Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309, in the opinion of this Court, is irrelevant. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) JULY 16, 2014 'ajk'

W.P.(C) 4306/2014 Page 6