Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
JYOTI SINGH
Abhishek Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Office of District and Sessions Judge (HQ) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to recruitment process regarding test modifications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner's application and grievances about deo post (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. arguments against dispensing descriptive test for selection (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. respondents' defense of selection process changes (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. court's review of arguments and evidence presented (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 6. undisputed facts about examination scheme and allegations (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. legal interpretation of 'written test' in recruitment rules (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 8. effect of urgency on recruitment process according to rules (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 9. court's stance on authority's discretion in recruitment (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 10. dismissal of petitions with no merit found (Para 66) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--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 mar
The court affirmed the authority to modify recruitment procedures under established rules, recognizing urgency and valid administrative discretion despite changes in selection criteria.
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....
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 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 clarified that subject-wise qualifying marks cannot be enforced post-examination as it contradicts the established selection rules, emphasizing the necessity for procedural clarity and comp....
Participating without objection in the selection process bars a candidate from later contesting its fairness; procedural adherence in evaluation is crucial for validity.
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.
Amended Rules of 1962 mandate that interview marks in public examinations cannot exceed 10% of total marks to ensure fair and transparent selection processes, reaffirming principles of constitutional....
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
