Pawan Kumar vs High Court Of Delhi Through Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3208 Del

$~24
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                             W.P.(C) 3731/2016
                                                    Date of decision: 3rd May, 2016

       PAWAN KUMAR                                                  ..... Petitioner
                                       In person.

                              versus

       HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
       GENERAL AND ANR                          ..... Respondent
                    Through     Mr. Rajiv Bansal and Ms. Arpita,
                    Advocates for R-.1.
                    Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

       SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

C.M.No.15902/2016

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 3731/2016 & C.M.No.15901/2016

We have heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, who appears in person.

2. The petitioner had appeared as a candidate in the Delhi Higher

Judicial Service Examination-2015, the preliminary objective type

examination held on 3rd April, 2016. The contention of the petitioner

is that the question paper did not follow the earlier pattern of question

papers set for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination.

Reference is made to the question paper for the examination held in

the year 2014. The petitioner submits that the 2015 paper had 42

general knowledge questions, whereas the 2014 question paper had 15

general knowledge questions. Thus, the petitioner was taken by

surprise. This change in pattern violates right to equal treatment. The

petitioner urges that over emphasis on a larger number of questions

relating to general knowledge has no rationale and is coarse, for it

prevents fair assessment of legal knowledge and acumen.

3. We have considered the said contention, but do not find any

merit in the same.

4. The advertisement inviting applications for the Delhi Judicial

Service Examination-2015, as published, had stated that there would

be a Preliminary (Objective Type) Examination of 250 marks. The

syllabus for the said Preliminary (Objective Type) question paper

comprised: General Knowledge, Current Affairs, English Language

and the Constitution of India, the Evidence Act, the Limitation Act,

the Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indian

Penal Code, the Contract Act, the Partnership Act, Principles

governing Arbitration Law, the Specific Relief Act, the Hindu

Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Transfer of Property Act

and the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not the case of the petitioner

that the questions in the Preliminary (Objective Type) Examination

were outside or beyond the syllabus.

5. Framing of questions or pattern of question paper is a part and

parcel for the 'selection procedure' for appointment, and lies within

the domain of the paper setter or expert bodies constituted for the said

purpose. Courts cannot interfere and adjudicate on the frame of the

question paper or particular nature of questions. How and which

question should be included in the objective type question paper and

the division of questions under the different heads is for the paper

setter to decide. The petitioner cannot claim and profess a vested

right on the questions or a number of questions on a subject which

should be included in the question paper. Earlier question papers or a

question paper pattern does not confer any right to claim that there

cannot be a change in pattern or the number of questions on a

particular subject. The contention, we profess is farfetched and

preposterous. In fact, frequent changes in pattern, it would be argued,

may be desirable.

6. Our attention was drawn to the question paper enclosed as

Annexure-D. We find that these are general knowledge questions,

including questions based on the Constitution and judicial decisions,

Judges etc. Scope and ambit of judicial review in such cases is very

limited and unless something absurd and execrable is noticed and is

palpable, interference is not warranted. [see N. Lokanadham Vs.

Chairman, Telecom Commission & Ors (2008) 5 SCC 155]. It was

held by the Supreme Court in Sanchit Bansal & Anr. v. Joint

Admission Board and Others (2012) 1 SCC 157:-

"27. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in the academic field and the courts will not interfere in such processes. The courts will only interfere if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory rules and regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious."

7. Candidates who clear the Preliminary (Objective Type)

Examination and also secure required ranking are shortlisted to

appear in the Main Examination (Descriptive Type), which comprises

of two papers carrying 250 marks. The Main Examination

(Descriptive type) obviously will test legal knowledge of the

candidates. The question paper in question has a substantial number

of legal questions.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is

dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

MAY 03, 2016 NA