Umesh Chandra Shukla: K. S. Mohi: Jaipal Singh Malik: Raj Kumar Jain: Suraj Bhan: Rakesh Garg: A. K. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India: Union Of India: Administrator, Delhi Administration: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Administrator For The Union Territory Of Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1985 Supreme(SC) 251

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.
Umesh Chandra Shukla, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 3805, 3850, 4363, 4623-25, 4548 and 4618 and Transfer Case No. 61 of 1985 (in Transfer Petn. No. 202 of 1985), D/- 2-8-1985.
WITH
K. S. Mohi, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, and others, Respondents.
WITH
Jaipal Singh Malik, Petitioner
Versus
The Administrator, Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, Respondents.
WITH
Raj Kumar Jain and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
WITH
Suraj Bhan, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
WITH
Rakesh Garg, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
AND
A. K. Chaturvedi, Petitioner
Versus
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others, Respondents.

Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, Asha Rani Jain, F.S.NARIMAN, G.M.NAYAR, INDIRA SAWHNEY, JANAK RAJ JOSHI, Jaspal Singh, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, K.SWAMY, KAILASH VASUDEV, M.A.KRISHNAMURTHY, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, P.H.Parekh, P.P.Rao, R.K.GARG, R.N.Poddar, RAKESH K.SHARMA, RANI JETHMALANI, S.K.Bisaria, S.K.VERMA, S.M.Ashri, S.S.Khanduja, U.R.Lalit, V.K.MAHESHVARI, Vinod Arya, Y.S.Chitale, Yashpal Dhingra

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226, 139A, 309, 234, 235 - Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 - Rule 13, 18, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Advocates Act. 1961 - Judicial Service - Challenged Validity Competitive Examination - Petitioners have challenged validity of proceedings relating to competitive examination held by High Court for purpose of recruiting candidates for filling posts in Judicial Service in year and of final list of selected candidates at that examination - Petitioner in Transfer, which was also heard along with above petitions, had filed earlier a writ petition before High Court of Delhi for very same relief - That writ petition was withdrawn by an order made for being disposed of along with writ petitions filed in this Court - Whether it was open to High Court, to include in list prepared under R. 16 of Rules names of candidates who had not secured minimum marks prescribed in Appendix of Rules for being eligible to appear at Viva Voce test; and - Whether it was open to Selection Committee or High Court to omit names of certain candidates who had appeared at Viva Voce examination from final list - Whether High Court has power to re-ckeck and re-value answer book of an examinee of Delhi Judicial Service - Whether High Court has power to recheck and revalue answer book of an examinee of Delhi Judicial Service - Whether High Court in circumstances of this case had power to add two marks to marks obtained in each paper by way of moderation - Whether such a resolution can be passed by High Court which is entrusted with duty of conducting examination - Whether a candidate included in final list prepared and forwarded by Selection Committee may be appointed or not is a matter to be considered by appointing authority – Held, In instant case decision that a candidate should have secured a minimum of 600 marks in aggregate in order to be included in final select list is not even taken by High Court but by Selection Committee - Moreover recruitment of persons other than District Judges to Judicial Service is required to be made under Art. 234 of Constitution in accordance with Rules made by Governor as provided therein, in consultation with High Court - Article 235 which vests in High Court control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto, cannot include power of making rules with regard to recruitment of persons other than District Judges to judicial service as it has been expressly dealt with in Art. 234 of Constitution - Court, therefore, quash list prepared by Selection Committee and direct that a fresh list shall be prepared in order of merit on basis of aggregate of marks obtained by candidates at written examination and at viva voce test without taking into consideration moderation marks added by High Court and without reference to decision of Selection Committee that candidates who had obtained less than 600 marks in aggregate should not be included in that list - It follows that said list should contain only names of 27 candidates who had secured minimum marks prescribed by Appendix to Rules for appearing at viva voce test - Appointing authority is directed to treat final list so prepared as list forwarded to it under R. 18 of Rules - On basis of said list appointments will now have to he made in accordance with law and relevant Government orders providing for reservation of posts to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes - If in accordance with interim order made by this Court any candidate has been appointed as a member of Delhi Judicial Service his continuance in service or his seniority shall be governed by list to be prepared in accordance with directions issued - Petitions allowed.

Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- In these petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the validity of the proceedings relating to the competitive examination held by the High Court of Delhi for the purpose of recruiting candidates for filling the posts in the Delhi Judicial Service in the year 1984 and of the final list of selected candidates at that examination. The petitioner in Transfer Case No. 61 of 1985, which was also heard along with the above petitions, had filed earlier a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Delhi for the very same relief. That writ petition was withdrawn by an order made under Art. 139A of the Constitution for being disposed of along with the writ petitions filed in this Court.

2. The petitioners in the above petitions were applicants for the posts of Subordinate Judges in the Delhi Judicial Service. Recruitment to the Delhi Judicial Service is governed by the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) made by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution read with Art. 234 of the Constitution. in consultation with the High Court of Delhi. The initial recruitment to the Delhi Judicial. Service was made in accordance with Para III of the Rules. Initial recruitment moans the first recruitment and appointment made to the Delhi Judicial Service after the commencement of the Rules. Any recruitment to the Delhi Judicial Service after the initial recruitment is required to be made in accordance with the rules contained in Part IV of the Rules. We are concerned in these cases mainly with Rr 13 to 18 of the Rules and the Appendix attached thereto Rule 13 of the Rules provides that recruitment after the initial recruitment, shall be made on the basis of a competitive examination to be hold by the High Court at such intervals as the Administrator may in consultation with the High Court determine. The Administrator is no other than the Lt. Governor of Delhi The dates on which and the place at which the examination is to be held are required to be fixed by the Administrator Rule 14 prescribes the minimum qualifications for a candidate which he should satisfy in order to be eligible to appear at the competitive examination. A candidate is eligible to appear at the examination if he is (a) a citizen of India. (b a person practising as an advocate in India or a person qualified to be admitted as an advocate under the Advocates Act. 1961. and (c) not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following the date of commencement of the examination. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the syllabus for the examination and the fees payable shall be as detailed in the Appendix attached to the Rules. The examination includes the following subjects and each subject carries the number of marks shown against it

(1) Eassy and General Knowledge 150

(2) Language 100

(3) Law Paper (I) and Civil Law 200

(4) Law Paper (II) Civil Law 200

(5) Paper (III) Criminal Law 200

(6) Viva Voce 150

3. The first five papers are called written papers. In clauses (1) to (5) of the Appendix the topics or subjects of each of the above written papers are set out Clause (6) of the Appendix which deals with Viva Voce reads as under :-

(6) Viva Voce - Only such candidates will, be called for Viva Voce who have obtained 50 in each written paper and 60 per cent in the aggregate except in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Tribes. in whose case the qualifying marks will be 40 in each written paper and 50 in the aggregate.

4. The marks obtained in the Viva Voce have to be added to the marks obtained in the written papers and the candidates rank depends on the aggregate of both Rule 16 of the Rules provides that after the written test, the High Court shall arrange the names of the candidates in order of merit and these names shall be sent to the Selection Committee T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document