2018 Supreme(SC) 394

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
Taniya Malik - Petitioners
Versus
The Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi - Respondents
Writ Petition [C] No. 764, 831, 832, 885, 896, 1046, 938, 996, 1063, 1081 of 2017 and 39 of 2018
Decided On : 16-02-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
When one examiner evaluates the same part of the one subject moderation is not called for.
Reevaluation cannot be done in absence of provision.
For appointment in higher judiciary interview is desirable and prescribing minimum passing marks is necessary.
Candidates participating in interview with stipulation of minimum marks cannot challenge it after being failed.
Candidate must meet the eligibility criteria of minimum pass marks without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to make up minimum aggregate.
Subject-wise cut-off marks in written examination is proper.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Recruitment – Written examination – Moderation – A method to reduce examiner's variability – In case of several examiners manually evaluating answer-scripts of respective/conventional type question papers in regard to the same subject – Instantly, one examiner evaluating the same part of the one subject – Moderation not called for. (Para 12, 13, 14)

       (2007) 3 SCC 720; (2015) 11 SCC 395 – Distinguished

       (b) Service law – Recruitment – Written examination – Reevaluation – Cannot be done in absence of provision. (Para 15)

       (2010) 6 SCC 759; W.P. [C] No.514 of 2015 – Relied upon

       (c) Service law – Recruitment – Written examination – Cut-off marks in viva voce – A written examination only tests academic knowledge – For appointment in higher judiciary interview is desirable and prescribing minimum passing marks is necessary – Minimum marks cannot be relaxed, that too after the interviews are held, merely because some more posts are vacant. (Para 17, 18, 19)

       (d) Estoppel – Candidates participating in interview with stipulation of minimum marks cannot challenge it after being failed. (Para 19)

       (2006) 6 SCC 395– Relied upon

       (e) Service law – Recruitment – Written examination – Aggregate and rounding off – Particular aggregate prescribed for eligibility – Candidate must meet it without relaxation – Not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to make up minimum aggregate. (Para 20, 22)

       (2012) 8 SCC 568; (2011) 8 SCC 108 – Relied upon

       (f) Service law – Recruitment – Written examination – Subject-wise cut-off marks in written examination – Held proper – One candidate obtaining highest marks in some papers and failing in one paper by one mark cannot be ground to interfere. (Para 23)

       Facts of the case:

       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.

       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.

       In W.P.[C] No.832 of 2017 prayer has been made to direct reevaluation of all the papers of the said examination by an independent Expert Committee headed by a retired Judge of this Court. Alternative prayer has been made to direct reevaluation of the answer-sheet of criminal law paper of the main examination of the petitioner. Prayer has also been made to direct moderation of marks obtained by the candidates

       In WP [C] No.1081 of 2017 - Naveen v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, prayer has been made to set aside the result of viva voce dated 25.9.2017 so far as the petitioner has been declared not qualified in viva voce test and to declare him qualified for selection on the vacant post available in his reserved category or to conduct fresh viva voce and the provision prescribing minimum marks for viva voce of judicial services is unreasonable.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no ground to interfere.

       Result: Writ petitions dismissed.