Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
PRAMITI BASU – Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY GENERAL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11007/2025|W.P.(C) 11008/2025|W.P.(C) 11043/2025|W.P.(C) 11067/2025|W.P.(C) 11115/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik, Ms. Shivalika Rudrabatla, Mr. Kartikay Puneesh, Mr. Dushyant Kaul, Ms. Rupam Jha, Ms. Medhavi Bhaila, Mr. Shubham Prajapati, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mandal, Mr. Akash Kumar, Mr. Phillip Massey, Mr. Mahipal Singh, Ms. Shrishti, Mr. Aditya Raj Marandi, Ms. Muskan Dulet
For the Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Mr. R.V. Prabhat, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Mr. Vikram Aditya, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Mr. Naman

The court upheld the validity of setting shortlisting benchmarks in recruitment processes, clarifying that such benchmarks do not violate fairness principles if established transparently before the relevant testing stages.

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Recruitment Processes - The petitioners, candidates for Junior Court Assistant, contested exclusion from subsequent recruitment stages despite qualifying initial tests, due to a contested benchmark of 43.18 marks. The Supreme Court's power of discretion in recruitment as outlined in Clause 18 of the advertisement allows for shortlisting; this decision is non-arbitrary and consistent with prior rulings which emphasize the importance of administrative efficiency and the management of limited vacancies. (Paras 1, 18, 34, 52)

(B) Employment Law - The principle against changing rules mid-way - The Supreme Court clarified that while eligibility criteria cannot be retrospectively altered post-application, a shortlisting criterion can be established if it is transparently communicated beforehand, thereby maintaining fairness in recruitment. (Paras 28, 40, 52)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were all candidates for Junior Court Assistant posts advertised by the Supreme Court. Despite passing the Typing Speed Test, they were excluded from the next recruitment round due to not achieving required scores set post-test. (Paras 1, 4)

Findings of Court:
The imposition of the 43.18 benchmark was lawful, being transparently set following the Typing Test, justified by the need to maintain a suitable candidate ratio for the limited vacancies available. (Paras 52)

Issues: The main issues concerned whether the shortlisting benchmark of 43.18 marks constituted an arbitrary change in recruitment rules post the commencement of the process, and whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation to participate in the subsequent test stages. (Paras 3, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that shortlisting benchmarks can be established in accordance with the discretion afforded in the advertisement, provided they do not retroactively alter eligibility criteria, which would infringe upon the established principle of fairness. (Paras 28, 52)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed without costs.

Table of Content
1. overview of petitioners' claims and examination process (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. details of respondent's recruitment process and rationale (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
3. petitioners' arguments against the cut-off application (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. respondent's defense of the cut-off and shortlisting (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. court's analysis and application of legal principles (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. final ruling on petitions (Para 52)

JUDGMENT

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:-

1.	Objective Type Question paper with multiple choice answers containing 100 questions (consisting of 50 General English questions including comprehension, 25 General Aptitude questions and 25 General Knowledge questions).	2 hours
2.	Objective Type Computer Knowledge Test (25 questions)
3.	Typing (English) test on Computer with minimum speed 35 w.p.m. (mistakes allowed upto 3% of total words to be typed)	10 minutes
4.	Descriptive Test (in English Language) consisting of Comprehension passage, Precis Writing and Essay Writing	2 hours

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.

Exam	Typing Passage	Exam Structure	Exam Duration
English Typing	350 Words	Mock Test (5 mins) + Break (10 mins) + English Typing (10 mins)	25 mins

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

No. of mistakes	M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIPrateek Jalan, JPRAMITI BASU – AppellantVersusSECRETARY GENERAL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – RespondentW.P.(C) 11007/2025|W.P.(C) 11008/2025|W.P.(C) 11043/2025|W.P.(C) 11067/2025|W.P.(C) 11115/2025

The court upheld the validity of setting shortlisting benchmarks in recruitment processes, clarifying that such benchmarks do not violate fairness principles if established transparently before the relevant testing stages.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
PRAMITI BASU – Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY GENERAL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11007/2025|W.P.(C) 11008/2025|W.P.(C) 11043/2025|W.P.(C) 11067/2025|W.P.(C) 11115/2025