Karan Antil vs High Court of Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1678

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 1678

VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Karan Antil – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Dr. Amit George, Mr. Piyo Harold Jainmon, Mr. Amil Acharya, Mr. Raya Durgam Bharat and Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik, Advocates, for R- 1.
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate, for R-3.
Mr. Sacchin Puri, Senior Advocate, Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Ms. Nidhi Rana, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Mitesh Tiwari, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, Advocates, for R-4.
Mr. Devansh A Mahta, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar and Ms. Sakshi Banga, Advocates, for R-5.
Ms. Rinku Parewa, Mr. Nikhil Jayant and Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocates, for R-6.
Mr. Akshay Makhija, Senior Advocate and Mr. Sahil Khurana, Advocate, for R8.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

Amit Mahajan, J.

INTRODUCTION

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the Notification No. F.1/10/2022-Judl./Suptlaw/213-220 dated 31.01.2023 appointing thirty-two persons (listed in the order of merit) as members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (hereafter 'the DHJS') against permanent posts. The petitioner, essentially, assails the inclusion of the names of respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the select list of candidates who have been offered appointment in the DHJS.

2. The petitioner had also appeared for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination - 2022 (hereafter 'DHJSE-22') along with other candidates and is placed at serial no.36 in the order of merit. The petitioner has not been appointed in the DHJS as the number of vacancies under the general category are limited to thirty-two.

3. Respondent no.6 is placed at serial no.33 in the order of merit but has joined Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service and is no longer interested in seeking appointment in the DHJS. However, another candidate, Aashish Rastogi, who was considered disqualified for being appointed, has prevailed in his challenge to being considered disqualified. In terms

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Del) 1678

VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJANKaran Antil – AppellantVersusHigh Court of Delhi – Respondent

VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Karan Antil – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi – Respondent