JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

INTRODUCTION

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 13.10.2022 (hereafter `the impugned notice') whereby, respondent no.1 (hereafter `the DHC') had awarded 01 (one) additional mark in Law-III paper and 0.5 (half) mark in the paper of General Knowledge and Language, to all the candidates who had appeared in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Mains (Written) Examination, 2022 (hereafter the `DHJS Mains (Written) Examination'). By virtue of the additional mark awarded in Law-III paper, respondent no.3 (Mr. Mayank Garg) as well as two other candidates qualified the DHJS Mains (Written) Examination and were admitted to the viva voce. Respondent no.3 was, subsequently, selected for joining the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (hereafter `the DHJS') as he was placed at serial no. 21 in the select list, in the order of merit. However, the other two candidates were not selected.

2. The petitioner also impugns the selection of respondent no.5 (Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma) to join the DHJS pursuant to clearing the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination - 2022 (hereafter `DHJS Examination, 2022'). According to the petitioner, respondent no.5 did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for selection to the DHJS or to appear for the DHJS Examination, 2022. The petitioner essentially challenges the selection and appointment of respondent no.3 and respondent no.5 to the DHJS.

3. The petitioner claims that it is not open to the DHC to award additional marks to candidates in the DHJS Mains (Written) Examination-2022 as the same is contrary to the relevant rules and also affects the integrity of the selection process.

4. The petitioner has also challenged the selection of respondent no.2 (Mr. Murari Singh) who is placed at rank 5 in the order of merit, respondent no.4 (Mr. Kumar Mitakshar) who is placed at rank 33 in the order of merit, and respondent no. 6 (Mr. Shankar Naryanan), who is ranked 1st (first) in the order of merit. However, it is not necessary to address the petitioner's challenge to the selection of respondent nos. 2 and 4 as respondent no. 2 has since withdrawn his candidature and respondent no. 4 has joined the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services.

5. Selection of respondent no. 6 is challenged on the ground that he does not satisfy the eligibility criteria. Respondent no. 6 had pursued the Master of Law Program at the University College London over a period of about nine months (23.09.2015 to 06.06.2016), during the period of seven years, preceding the last application for the DHJS Examination, 2022. The petitioner claims that the period spent by respondent no. 6 in pursuing the said course cannot be considered as a period spent practicing as an Advocate. This contention was rejected by this Court in the decision in Karan Antil v. High Court of Delhi & Ors.^{1[Karan Antil v. High C}