The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to intervene in the evaluation and selection process for judicial services examinations to ensure fairness and transparency.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, along with Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi. We have also heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 712 of 2015.

2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 514 of 2015 was filed asserting certain aspects in awarding marks to the candidates who appeared in the preliminary and also main examinations for Delhi Judicial Services, meant for 2014. Be it noted, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 14.12.2015, the following order was passed :-

"We have been apprised at the Bar that 659 candidates had qualified in the preliminary examination and appeared in the main examination and out of the same, 15 candidates have been selected after facing the interview. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the total vacancies are 80 in number. Be that as it may. It is well settled in law that if the suitable candidates are not found, the employer is not obliged to fill up the posts. However, we desire to address the grievance of the petitioners who had appeared in the main examination and treat it as a special case and direct as follows:

(a) The candidates who have not been qualified in the main examination to appear in the interview, their papers shall be revalued on the parameters of the marks obtained by the last general category candidate who has been selected in the general category. If there are further reserved posts, the said parameter applicable to Scheduled Castes who have been selected shall also be adhered to in respect of the candidates who belong to Scheduled Castes. We may hasten to clarify, if there are no further posts in the reserved category, the said exercise need not be taken recourse to.

(b) Regard being had to the fact that the papers have initially valued by the six examiners, we think it appropriate that a former Supreme Court Judge should be requested to revalue the answer papers as we have mentioned in paragraph (a).

(c) If any candidate is found fit on the test applied as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, they shall be called for interview by the same Board that had interviewed the earlier candidates.

(d) We request Justice P.V. Reddi, formerly a Judge of this Court and the Former Chairman of the Law Commission of India to accept the assignment and carry out the exercise.

(e) The High Court of Delhi is directed to provide appropriate accommodation, preferably a court room, and the requisite secretarial staff for the purpose of valuation. The High Court shall facilitate the travelling of Justice P.V. Reddi from his place of residence to the Delhi High Court and provide a vehicle till he is in Delhi.

(f) Justice Reddi is requested to commence the process on or before 10.01.2016. As the Delhi High Court has advertised for filling up rest of the vacancies, we would request Justice Reddi to make an effort to complete the valuation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks so that the advertised vacancies are in no way affected.

(g) The fee Reddi shall payable to Justice be determined by P.V. this Court on the next date of hearing.

(h) When we have said that the selected candidates whose answers script would be the parameter, it clearly conveys that selection of the selected candidates shall not be unsettled. The candidates who shall obtain the requisite marks in comparison to the 15 candidates shall be called for interview and in the ultimate eventuate, if they are selected, they would not be ranked senior to the candidates who have already been selected and appointed."

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Justice P.V. Reddy, formerly a Judge of this Court, revalued the answer scripts and submitted a report, which was taken note of vide or