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.

JUDGMENT : 

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are all candidates for appointment to the post of Junior Court Assistant [“JCA”] in the respondent-Supreme Court of India, pursuant to an advertisement dated 04.02.2025. They are aggrieved by a notification dated 14.07.2025, by which results of the Typing Speed Test stage of the recruitment process were declared. The petitioners’ grievance is that they have been excluded from the next stage of recruitment [Descriptive Test], despite having been declared as qualified in the Typing Speed Test.

2. As the petitions are predicated on virtually identical grounds, they were taken up for hearing together. W.P.(C) 11007/2025 was treated as the lead case. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the pleadings filed therein have been considered in respect of all the petitions.

A. FACTS

3. The respondent advertised 241 vacancies for the post of JCA on 04.02.2025. The present dispute concerns the “Scheme of Examination” provided in the advertisement, which is reproduced below:

“Scheme of Examination

The eligible candidates will have to appear in the tests in the following subject:-

The candidates who qualify in the Objective Type Written Test and Objective Type Computer Knowledge Test will only be called for Typing Speed Test on Computer and Descriptive Test and those who qualify the said tests will be required to appear for an Interview before an Interview Board and qualify the Interview by securing minimum qualifying marks. Number of candidates to be called for Interview shall not exceed the ratio of 1:3 i.e. 3 candidates against 1 vacancy subject to availability of candidates who would be qualified on the basis of above Tests. After qualifying in prescribed tests and Interview, the selected candidates will be empanelled in the order of merit for appointment as Junior Court Assistant. The candidates may note that mere placement in panel does not confer any right on the candidates to claim appointment for the post of Junior Court Assistant.”[Emphasis supplied.]

4. The petitioners were successful in the first two stages of the examination, which comprised of Objective Type Question Paper and the Objective Type Computer Knowledge Test. They were therefore called for a Typing Test on computer. The admit cards for the Typing Speed Test contained several “Instructions to Candidates”, of which the following are relevant:

“Instruction to Candidates

English Typing test of SCI will be conducted in following manner.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

3. 10 minutes will be given for actual Typing Test (English)

4. Candidates will be able to do a practice typing test for 5 minutes before the actual typing test

5. There will also be a break of 10 minutes between Mock / Practice and the Actual Typing Test.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Marking Formula for Typing Speed Test on Computer

5. By the impugned notification dated 14.07.2025, the respondent declared the result of the Typing Speed Test held on 04.06.2025 for 10,281 candidates. The opening paragraph of the notification and first 20 rows, by way of example, are reproduced below:

“Result of Typing Speed Test on Computer in respect of 10281 candidates for the post of Junior Court As