Delhi High Court
Aseem Siddiqui & Ors. vs Delhi High Court on 29 January, 2021
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.01.2021
+ W.P.(C) 557/2021
ASEEM SIDDIQUI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
DELHI HIGH COURT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal and Mr.
Vishwajeet Singh, Advocates along
with Mr. V.K. Mittal, Deputy
Registrar (Examination Cell).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 1465/2021 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 557/2021 & CM APPL. 1464/2021 (for direction)
3. The Petitioners are employees of the Delhi High Court (Establishment
Branch), and are working as Despatch Rider / Court Attendants. Petitioner
No. 1 is working on probation, whereas the other three Petitioners are
permanent/confirmed employees. They have jointly filed the present petition
challenging the circular No.17/EC-2/Exams/DHC dated 30th January, 2020,
issued by the Delhi High Court, Registrar (Examination Cell) for filling up
of 38 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer, under (30%) Departmental
Test Quota [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Circular']. The impugned
circular was issued in terms of clause (b) of Item No. 25 and 26 of Schedule
II to the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1972, which is extracted herein below:
Category of Post Minimum Qualifications Mode of
Sl. No.
& Pay Level prescribed for appointment Appointment
to the Posts
Junior Judicial
25 & 26 a. XXXX XXXX a. XXXX
Assistant/Restorer
(Pay level-5 of 7th b. For departmental b. 30% of the
Pay Commission) examination - By vacant posts by
promotion from members of promotion from the
the Establishment of the posts mentioned in
High Court: Matriculation Column No. 3 on
or equivalent with the basis of written
knowledge of English; test, Typing test in
having five years' service English with speed
in any of the category 27 of not less than 25
(Chauffeur), 28 [Despatch words per minute
Van Driver (Rider)], 29 and interview,
(Despatch Rider), 30 subject to their
(Despatch Rider-cum- work and conduct
Process Server), 31 report.
(Photocopy Machine
Operator Grade-I), 32
(Library Attendant) 33
(Usher), 34 (Photocopy
Machine Operator Grade-
II), 35 (Court Attendant),
36 [Court Attendant (L), 37
[Court Attendant (S)], 38
[Room Attendant (H)], and
39 (Security Attendant).
4. As per the Scheme of Examination, the departmental exam is to be
conducted in three stages i.e. Stage-I (Written Test), Stage-II (English
Typing Test) and Stage-III (Interview). With respect to Stage-I (Written
Test), it is stipulated that the candidate is required to pass Part-A as well as
Part-B, independently, by obtaining 20 minimum passing marks in each part.
The relevant provision reads as under:
Stage of Examination Scheme of Examination
Stage-I A Written Test of total Maximum 100 Marks of three hours
(Written Test) duration (Part-A of 50 Maximum Marks containing
questions to test candidate's knowledge of General English
and Part-B of 50 Maximum Marks containing questions to
test candidate's knowledge of General Knowledge and
Current Affairs) with, 20 minimum passing marks for Parts
A & B each.
5. The Petitioners applied under the impugned circular on 12th February,
2020, and appeared for Stage-I (written examination) held on 29th
November, 2020. The result of Stage-I (written examination) was announced
on 8th January, 2021, wherein the Petitioners did not obtain the minimum
marks required independently/separately in Part-A or Part-B of the Written
Examination, and resultantly did not qualify for Stage-II of the process.
6. The grievance of the Petitioners is that although they obtained more
than 40% marks in aggregate in the Written Examination, they have been
disqualified on account of the afore-noted provision introduced for the first
time in the Scheme of Examination, which requires the obtaining of
qualifying marks independently in Part-A and Part-B. They contend that in
previous years, a candidate was only required to pass the written
examination with minimum 40% qualifying marks, and there was no
requirement of passing Part-A and Part-B independently/separately, and the
aforesaid provision is illegal, unjustified and unconstitutional.
7. In this backdrop, the Petitioners have approached this Court seeking
directions for : (a) setting aside of the impugned Circular, issued by the
Delhi High Court, Registrar (Examination Cell) to the extent it provides that
a candidate is required to qualify Part-A as well as Part-B
separately/independently with 20 minimum passing marks in Stage-I
(Written Test) of the examination; (b) setting aside the impugned result
dated 08th January, 2021 of the Written Test wherein it was declared inter
alia that the petitioners have failed to pass/qualify the Stage-I (Written Test);
(c) to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post
of Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer treating them to have qualified the
Stage-I (Written Test), without insisting upon the conditions of obtaining 20
marks in Part-A & Part-B each independently/separately.
8. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, counsel for the Petitioners, contends that there is
an acute shortage of JJA/Restorer in this Court. He submits that a
recruitment process which started on 3rd February, 2020, for filling up the
direct recruitment posts of 132 JJA/Restorer has not been completed and
even the written examination has not been conducted till date. He submits
that since there are vacant posts of JJA/Restorer, the Petitioners can be
appointed against such posts. The condition in the impugned circular, which
was introduced for the first time, should not be insisted upon. He further
submits that the number of posts advertised under the impugned circular
were 38, to which a total of 137 candidates filled the application form, and
only 114 appeared in the written examination. Amongst those, only 34
candidates qualified the written test. Thus, presuming all the candidates
qualify Stage-II (English Typing Test) as well as Stage-III (Interview), even
then 04 posts will still remain vacant. Since the Petitioners have obtained
more that 40% qualify marks in total, they can be appointed against the said
04 vacant posts. He further submits that no prejudice will be caused to any
candidate in case the Petitioners are allowed to appear in Stage-II of the
Written Examination. It is further submitted that the condition of passing
Part-A or Part-B of the examination independently and separately defeats the
objective of encouraging and making more appointments from Departmental
candidates. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioners
also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Syed Mehedi v. Govt. of NCT
of Delhi & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9015, to contend that since there are
vacancies, the Respondent can give a relaxation in the qualifying marks.
9. He also submitted that prior to the declaration of the result, a few
similarly situated candidates, who had obtained 40% qualifying marks in the
written examination in aggregate, made a representation to the Registrar
General, Delhi High Court, seeking inter alia a direction to allow the
candidates to appear in Stage-II (English Typing Test), i.e. without insisting
upon the condition that the candidate must obtain 20 marks in each part of
the written examination.
10. We have perused the record and considered the contentions urged by
the learned counsel for the Petitioners. In our view, the present petition is
completely devoid of merit. The cut off marks in each subject prescribed
under the impugned circular are being applied uniformly to all the
candidates and therefore there is nothing irregular in this exercise. The cut
off marks are fixed by the Examining Body, keeping in view the relevancy
of the subject, to shortlist suitable candidates for the service. The Examining
Body is well within its rights to adjudge the quality/capacity of the
candidates and for this purpose they can prescribe the cut off / minimum
marks so that only such candidates are selected, who are suitable and fulfil
the standard required for discharge of the duties for the said post. The
written examination tests the knowledge of the candidates which is essential
for the post applied for. Significantly, the selection criteria was adopted and
declared at the time of commencement of the recruitment process. The
Petitioners, after having participated in the selection process, cannot insist
upon changing the selection criteria after failing to qualify as per the criteria
laid down. In our view, since the mode of selection has been prescribed, it
has to be adhered to strictly, and there is no provision shown to us to relax
the eligibility criteria. Merely because there are vacancies, would not entitle
the Petitioners to seek a relaxation in the eligibility criteria/qualifying marks.
11. Since the Petitioners have failed to secure the qualifying marks in the
written examination, we are not persuaded to give any directions as sought
for in the present petition. There is no merit in the petition, accordingly the
same is dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of.
12. We may however note that during the course of the arguments, it has
been stated that the Petitioners have made a representation to the Hon'ble the
Chief Justice of this Court. Needless to say, they shall free to pursue the
same, if they so desire.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JANUARY 29, 2021
nd
