K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. M. PANCHAL
Hemani Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
J.M. Panchal, J. —
1. These petitions are filed under Article 32 of the Constitution wherein the common prayer made, is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to direct the respondent i.e. the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi to amend notice dated April 10, 2007 issued by Registrar (Vig.), High Court of Delhi to the effect that the petitioner of each petition, is also declared as selected for being recommended for appointment to the vacant post in Delhi Higher Judicial Service and prepare a combined merit list on the basis of total marks obtained in written examination as well as proportionate marks of the interview, as if, the vive-voce test was of 75 marks instead of 750 marks or by adding marks obtained in written examination and the marks given to the petitioner in the interview out of 750 marks without cut off.
2. In order to resolve the controversy raised by the petitioners in the petitions it would be advantageous to refer to certain basic facts.
3. The respondent i.e. the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi through Registrar General issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for 16 vacant posts to be filled up b
Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 1777 — Referred to.(Para 5)
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141 — Referred to. (Para 10)
Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721 — Referred to. (Para 10)
Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 — Distinguished. (Para 10)
Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646 — Referred to. (Para 10)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.