Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Abhishek Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Office Of District And Sessions Judge (hq) & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7122 of 2020, 11136 of 2020; Cm Appl No. 24183 of 2020, 34758 of 2020
Decided On : 20-04-2021
WRIT PETITION - [KEYWORD] - SUBJECT - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the impugned action of the Respondents whereby, the descriptive test of 100 marks has been dispensed with and consequently, the marks of the interview have been reduced during the process of recruitment to the posts of Junior Judicial Assistant (JJA) and Data Entry Operator (Grade-A) (DEO (Grade-A)).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned action of dispensing the descriptive test and reducing the interview marks was not arbitrary or violative of the Recruitment Rules. The Court further held that the decision to dispense with the descriptive test was taken in the exigency and interest of administration and suffers from no arbitrariness, calling for interference by the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned action of dispensing the descriptive test and reducing the interview marks was arbitrary or violative of the Recruitment Rules? 2. Whether the decision to dispense with the descriptive test was taken in the exigency and interest of administration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned action of dispensing the descriptive test and reducing the interview marks was not arbitrary or violative of the Recruitment Rules. The Court reasoned that: a. The term 'written test' prescribed in the Recruitment Rules cannot connote only a descriptive test, as alleged by the Petitioner. It can also include an objective test based on Multiple Choice Questions. b. The decision to dispense with the descriptive test was taken in the exigency and interest of administration and suffers from no arbitrariness, calling for interference by the Court. 2. The Court held that the decision to dispense with the descriptive test was taken in the exigency and interest of administration. The Court reasoned that: a. The Office of District & Sessions Judge (HQs) was facing a severe crunch of ministerial staff and in addition the induction training of approximately 125 Judicial Officers in the cadre of DJS was likely to be completed by March, 2020. In the absence of ministerial staff, it was impossible to conduct the Courts. b. Further, recruitment process of 75 DJS Officers and 30 DHJS Officers was underway. Conducting and evaluation of a descriptive test is a time- consuming process and thus looking at the urgency, a conscious decision was taken to dispense with it.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Present writ petitions have been preferred by the Petitioner challenging the impugned action of the Respondents whereby, the descriptive test of 100 marks has been dispensed with and consequently, the marks of the interview have been reduced during the process of recruitment to the posts of Junior Judicial Assistant (hereinafter referred to as 'the JJA') and Data Entry Operator (Grade-A) (hereinafter referred to as 'DEO (Grade-A)'). As the Petitioner had applied in the General/Unreserved category, these petitions pertain only to the said category. Since common questions are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common judgment and facts to the extent they are different in the two writ petitions are being separately narrated hereinafter.
W.P. (C) 7122/2020
2. Respondent No.1/Office of District & Sessions Judge (HQs) issued a combined Vacancy Notice/Advertisement on 14.09.2020 inviting applications for recruitment to the vacant posts of Senior Personal Assistant, Personal Assistant, Junior Judicial Assistant and Data Entry Operator for the Office of District & Sessions Judge (HQs) Delhi and Office of Principal Judge, Family Courts (HQs) Delhi. Present petition is confined to the post of JJA for which, total 161 vacancies were advertised, out of which 62 were in the Unreserved Category.
3. Scheme of the examination delineated the selection into four phases/Tiers, as follows:-
Tier I:
Objective test with 120 questions for total 120 marks.
Tier II:
Skill test (typing test): Candidates who scored 50% marks (General Category) i.e. 60 marks (50% of 120) in Tier I (MCQ test) or 25 times of the total vacancies (whichever will the minimum number) were to be called for the skill test @ 40 w.p.m. The skill test was qualifying in nature.
Tier III:
Descriptive test: Candidates who qualified the skill test were to be called for the descriptive test in English Language with total 100 marks. The test included Essay, Grammar and Translation with minimum passing marks in General Category being 50% i.e. 50 marks out of 100 marks.
Tier IV:
Interview of 30 marks (for maximum of 10 times of the total vacancies). The minimum passing marks for General category candidates were 40% of 30 marks i.e. 12 marks.
4. It was notified in the advertisement that the selection of the candidates shall be in accordance with 'Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules'). Final merit list of successful candidates was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in aggregate of the performance in objective test (MCQ), descriptive test and interview.
5. Petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria and submitted his application for the post of JJA in the Unreserved Category on 21.01.2019. His application was found to be in order and an E-admit card was issued to him on 23.11.2019. Petitioner appeared for the objective test on 29.11.2019 and the result thereof was declared in January, 2020.
6. As per the Petitioner, there were 1677 candidates who qualified the objective test for appearing in the skill test. Petitioner also qualified with 87.5 marks with a rank of 1606. On 21.01.2020, the skill test was conducted in which the Petitioner participated. Result of the test was published in February, 2020 and 191 candidates in the Unreserved Category qualified the skill test. Petitioner also qualified the test with a speed of 48.90 w.p.m.
7. On 05.08.2020, Petitioner came across a notice informing the candidates that on-line interview, through Video Conferencing, was scheduled to commence from the last week of August, 2020, with no mention of the Tier-III descriptive test. On 19.08.2020, a circular was issued by the Respondents in continuation of the earlier notice dated 05.08.2020, intimating the dates for the on-line interview as 30.08.2020 and 12.09.2020 and that the descriptive test was dispensed with. Revised criteria of interview marks
The court affirmed the authority to modify recruitment procedures under established rules, recognizing urgency and valid administrative discretion despite changes in selection criteria.
Descriptive test for cadre of Junior Judicial Assistant - Selection Process - It is true that Establishment Rules, for some of posts including that of Process Server do prescribe selection on basis o....
The court upheld administrative discretion to modify recruitment processes, affirming that a 'written test' includes objective assessments and that dispensing with a Descriptive Test was justified du....
Appointment of clerical cadre and Stenographer – Eligibility criteria - Since there is no cut off marks, an incumbent therefore, cannot be adjudged as ineligible as merit list is drawn on basis of ag....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection based on interview alone is permissible, and there is no rule of thumb for the weightage of marks for interview, as it varies fr....
The court reaffirmed that qualifying and shortlisting criteria can be distinct, allowing administrative discretion in recruitment processes as long as they are transparently and reasonably applied.
Participating without objection in the selection process bars a candidate from later contesting its fairness; procedural adherence in evaluation is crucial for validity.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
