-

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 01.03.2024 + W.P.(C) 1554/2024 GOURAV RAJPUT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr B.S. Chauhan, Adv.

versus DELHI HIGH COURT ..... Respondent Through: Mr Shashank Garg, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL [Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

1. On the previous date, i.e., 02.02.2024, when the matter was heard, we had, broadly, recorded the contours of the case. For convenience, the relevant part of the said order is extracted hereafter:

“2. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner is that because minimum marks were fixed for the interview [concerning recruitment for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer], he was disqualified.

3. It is averred that in the main written examination, the petitioner secured

69.5 marks and in the interview, he obtained 10 marks.

4. As per the notification issued by the respondent/Delhi High Court [in short, “DHC”], the petitioner had to secure in the interview a minimum of 11 out of 25 marks.

5. The petitioner claims that if the marks obtained in the written examination and the interview are added up his rank would scale up to second place, albeit in the category of „EWS candidates‟.

6. To be noted, the number of posts advertised under the EWS category was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN W.P.(C) 1554/2024 Page 1 of 5

-

21.

7. Mr Shashank Garg, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the DHC, says that for the future, the course correction has been made inasmuch, the previous regime requiring prescription of minimum qualifying marks for interviews for Group B and C posts has been discarded.

8. Mr Garg submits that this course of action was taken pursuant to the intercession of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6353/2023, titled, Aalma Vs. Delhi High Court

9. Prima facie, according to us, although the grievance articulated by the petitioner has weight, it is the juncture at which he has decided to approach the court that ties our hands.

10. However, we would like Mr Garg to place the relevant data before us which would disclose the details of candidates who failed to get appointed because they did not meet the erstwhile criteria put in place of securing minimum qualifying marks fixed for interview qua the subject examination i.e., JJA/Restorer (Group 'C') Examination, 2020.

11. At this stage, we are told by Mr Garg, on instructions, that all 21 posts in the EWS category stand filled up.

12. List the matter on 01.03.2024.”

2. Mr Shashank Garg, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/Delhi High Court, has placed before us the data which has brought to the fore as to how an increase in the interview marks would impact the candidates falling in reserved category. The relevant part of that data is set forth hereafter:

“Reserved Categories (EWS, OBC, SC, ST, Ex. Servicemen, PwD)

*Maximum marks in Interview – 25 *Minimum passing marks for reserved categories – 11

Failed by marks	Total number of candidates
1 mark	158
2 marks	40
3 marks	60
5 marks	1
Total	259

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN W.P.(C) 1554/2024 Page 2 of 5

-

3. As would be evident, if one (01) mark is increased in the reserved categories, comprising EWS, OBC, SC, ST, Ex. Servicemen, and PwD, 158 candidates will get impacted.

4. It is not in dispute that under the regime prevalent at the time when examinations were held for Junior Judicial Assistant (JJA)/Restorer Group ‘C’ Examination, 2020, the candidates were required to obtain a minimum of 11 marks out of a total of 25 marks allocated for the interview.

4.1 Concededly, the petitioner obtained only 10 marks and hence failed to qualify.

5. Mr B.S. Chauhan, learned counsel,who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that fixing minimum marks for interview has been deprecated in the judgment dated 05.12.2023, rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6353/2023, titled Aalma v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document