SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 394

ARUN MISHRA, AMITAVA ROY
Taniya Malik – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Sanjay R. Hegde, R. Basant, Sr. Advs., Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Md. Azzam Ali, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Upendra Pratap Singh, Sanjay Jain, Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Surabhi Bhatia, Anas Tanwar, Ankit Yadav, Ms. Maryam N. Alavi, Pranjal Kishore, Jageen singh Dhankar, Ms. Rudra Dutta, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Anurag Singh, Ms. Aniruddha Purushottam, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Rajeev Sharma, Deepak Goel, Kamal Kumar Pandey, Manoj Dwivedi, Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Ms. Kinyak Loya, Prashant Bhushan, Pramit Saxena, Aviral Kashyap, Vijay Pratap Singh, Ms. Akanksha Goyal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Annam D.N. Rao, Dudipto Sircar, Rahul Mishra, Ms. Tulika Chikker, Annam Venkatesh, Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Delhi Judicial Service, 2015 Examination for which an advertisement was issued on 3.10.2015. 100 vacancies were advertised. The examination was to be held in two stages - preliminary, thereafter, - main examination (written) for selection of candidates for viva voce. Out of the 100 posts advertised, 68 were of the General Category; SC 12; ST 20; out of them 41, 7 and 17 were the backlog vacancies of respective categories. Two vacancies were reserved for physically handicapped (blind/low vision) and two vacancies for physically handicapped candidates (Ortho.). The appointments were to be subject to the outcome of W.P. (C) No. 514 of 2015 and C.A. No.1086 of 2013 pending in this Court and W.P. (C) No. 2828 of 2010 pending in the High Court of Delhi.

2. In Writ Petition [C] No.764 of 2017 - Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, prayer has been made to reduce the minimum cut off marks of individual subjects from 40% to 33% and in the alternative, the Delhi High Court be directed to relax the criteria for calling for interview.

3. Petitioner












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top