BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

Centre for Public Interest Litigation

Petitioners

versus

Registrar General of
The High Court of Delhi

Respondent

PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

PRASHANT BHUSHAN: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

INDEX
S.No.

Page No.

Particulars

1.

LISTING PERFORMA

2.

WRIT PETITION

3.

ANNEXURE

P-1:

Copy

of

the

advertisement dated 18.02.2014.

4.

ANNEXURE P-2: Copy of the result of

Main examination of DJS 2014.

5.

ANNEXURE P-3: Copy of the list of

successful

candidates

of

the

judicial

services of other states with their marks in

the present Main Exam
6.

ANNEXURE P-4: Copy of the merit lists of

successful

candidates

of

the

judicial

services of other states

7.

ANNEXURE P-5: Copy of the list of the

candidates who are toppers or second
rank holders in their respective judicial
exams of other states.

8.

ANNEXURE

P-6:

Copy

of

the

of

the

representation dated 11.05.2015

9.

ANNEXURE

P-7:

Copy

representation dated 14.05.2015.

11.

ANNEXURE P-8: Copy of the RTI reply

dated 28.05.2015

12.

ANNEXURE P-9- Copy of the letter dated

18.06.2015 written by the Union Law
Minister

13.

ANNEXURE P-10: Copy of the Indian

Express report dated 26 June 2015

14.

ANNEXURE P-11: Copy of the Economic

Times report dated 26 June 2015

15.

Annexure P-12: Copy of the Indian

Express report dated 30 June 2015

16.

Annexure P-13:

Copy of the Indian

Express report dated 06 July 2015

17.

ANNEXURE P-14: Copy of the Notice

dated 27.07.2015 issued by the Registrar
General of the High Court of Delhi
announcing the date for holding the
interviews on 06.08.2015.

16.

APPLICATION

FOR

STAY/INTERIM

DIRECTION
17.

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM

FILING

OFFICIALLY

COPIES OF ANNEXURES

TRNASLATED

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

That the present writ petition is being filed in public interest
under Article 32 of the constitution. The Petitioner is
challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method
adopted in Main (Written) Examination of Delhi Judicial
Service, 2014 (DJS) on the grounds of being unreasonable,
arbitrary and hence, in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Some of the facts which indicate that the selection
process for the DJS, 2014 has not been fair or reasonable are
as follows:
(i)

A total 9033 students took the preliminary examination

held on 01.07.2014 for total 80 vacancies, of which 55
were for the General Category candidates;

(ii)

659 students out of 9033, who were declared successful

in preliminary examination, took the main examination
held on 10th and 11th October, 2014;

(iii)

The result of this Main Examination was declared on 1st

May 2015, almost 8 months after the exam was held.
Surprisingly, only 15 students (13 from General Category
and 2 from reserved category) have been selected for the
interview for total 80 vacancies in the result declared on
1st May 2015. That means a total of 98% of the students
were failed and only 2% managed to pass.

(iv)

The ostensible explanation for selecting only 15 students,

even though normally three times the number of seats
notified are called for interview test, would be that no other

candidate could get 50% aggregate cut off marks or

required 40% cut off in all the papers.
(v)

Furthermore what is remarkable is that at least 68

candidates, who appeared for the Main Exam but not
selected for the interview, are those who have already
cleared judicial examinations of other States and most of
them are sitting judges in their respective states.

(vi)

At least 6 candidates, who have not been selected for the

interview, are 1st rank holders in the judicial exams of their
respective states, and at least 3 candidates are 2nd rank
holders in their respective judicial exams.

(vii) At least 3 candidates, who have not been found suitable

for the interview test in DJS, 2014, have cleared the
judicial service exams of two different states. (Shivdan
Choudhary- cleared Gujarat and Rajasthan and Akanksha
Garg- cleared UP and Rajasthan, Nahid Sultana- cleared
UP and Jharkhand)
(viii) Apparently at least 2 candidates had been in judicial
service since 2011 in Haryana and at the time of the exam
they had an experience of 4 years each of sitting on the
bench (2011 Haryana batch - Neetika Bhardwaj and Mansi
Dhiman)
(ix)

The Petitioner has learnt, as per the representation by the

candidates, that some of the candidates who have not been
found fit for being called for the interview are the toppers
and gold medalists in their respective law colleges.

(x)

Further, it appears from the representation of the

candidates that several candidates are LL.M. holders from
reputed institutions like ILI (Indian Law Institute, Delhi)
and NLS (National Law School, Bangalore) and several
candidates are NET (National Eligibly Test) qualified law
lecturers in esteemed law colleges like Delhi University
Law Faculty (DU).

(xi)

The Delhi High Court on the 28th May 2015 in an RTI reply
has admitted that no set criteria and no model answers
were provided to the examiners.

(xii) Moreover, the Union Law Minister has received several

complaints in this regard and had also written to the
Honble Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi wherein
he has mentioned that there were allegations that kin of
the sitting judges of the Delhi High Court have been
favoured in the said exam. As per the letter of the Union
Law Minister, which is in public domain, Rank 1 and rank
3 are children of sitting High Court judges.
It is respectfully submitted that the results of the Main Exam of DJS,
2014 show that there is a serious problem with the evaluation
method of the exam, which is being conducted for selecting the
judicial officers in Delhi, and unless this evaluation method or
selection process for DJS is re-examined to make it more rational and
reasonable, without compromising on merits, one of the most
important factors responsible for huge pendency or delay in justice
i.e. lack of sufficient number of judicial officers will not be tackled.

This kind of selection process will further demotivate several other

meritorious students of good law schools from choosing judicial
services as their career option. The students with good academic
records would never appear in the exams having such unreasonable
selection method and especially when they are not taking place at
regular intervals.
Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking quashing of the aforesaid result
and also seeking re-evaluation of all the papers of the Main
Examination by an independent committee of the experts preferably
headed by some retired judge of the High Court.
Moreover, the aforesaid selection process also illustrates the need of
adopting uniform selection procedures for appointing judicial officers
through an independent Judicial Service Commission. In some of the
states like Bihar, UP, Uttarakhand, Odisha, Himachal Pradesh,
Jharkhand, Haryana, Punjab the entire selection of lower judicial
officers is done through their respective public service commissions.
However, in the States like Delhi, Rajasthan, MP, Gujarat, their
respective High Courts themselves conduct examinations and do
final selections. In a selection system where the High Court itself
conducts the examinations for selection of the judicial officers, the
possibility of conflict of interest or even allegation of bias cannot be
ruled out. In order to eliminate all chances of conflict of interest or
allegation of bias, there must be a uniform transparent system of
examination for selection of judicial officers through an independent
Judicial Service Commission.

18.02.2014

On 18.02.2014, after a gap of three years, an

advertisement was issued for recruitment to 80
vacancies of Delhi Judicial Service (DJS). Out of 80
vacancies,

55

were

for

the

General

Category

candidates. The exam was to be held in three parts,

the preliminary examination, the main examination
and the interview.
01.06.2014

The preliminary examination was conducted on

01.06.2014.

total

9033

students

took

the

preliminary examination.
10-11.10.14

Total 659 out of 9033 candidates who successfully

cleared the preliminary examination appeared for the
Main examination which was held on 10th and 11th
October, 2014. As per the advertisement, a candidate
was required to get 50% marks in aggregate and 40%
in each subject in the Main Examination to be selected
for the interview.

01.05.2015

The result of the Main Examination was announced

after almost 8 months on 01.05.2015 wherein only 15
students (13 from General Category and 2 from
reserved category) have been selected for viva voice
test for 80 vacancies. Thus, 98% of the students who
had cleared preliminary examination were not found
suitable for final round. It is submitted that normally
three times the number of seats notified are called for

interview test. In 2010, 120 candidates were called for

interview for 27 seats of DJS and in 2011, 75
candidates were selected for 23 seats. It would be
pertinent hereto mention that at least 68 candidates,
who appeared for the Main Exam but not selected for
the interview, are those who have already cleared
judicial examinations of other States and most of them
are sitting judges in their respective states. At least 6
candidates, who have not been selected for the
interview, are 1st rank holders in the judicial exams of
their respective states, and at least 3 candidates are
2nd rank holders in their respective judicial exams. At
least three candidates, who have not been found
suitable for the interview test in DJS, 2014, have
cleared the judicial service exams of two different
states. At least 2 candidates, had been in judicial
service since 2011 in Haryana and at the time of the
exam had an experience of 4 years each of sitting on
the bench. Some of the candidates who have not been
found fit for being called for the interview are the
toppers and gold medalists in their respective law
colleges. Several candidates are LL.M. holders from
reputed institutions like ILI (Indian Law Institute,
Delhi)

and

NLS

(NLS,

Bangalore)

and

several

candidates are NET (National Eligibly Test) qualified

law lecturers in esteemed law colleges like Delhi

University Law Faculty (DU). Furthermore, it is crucial

to note that the Delhi Judicial Services exam (DJS
exam) is one in which the bare act is provided and
most of the questions are application based.

11.05.2015

On 11th May 2015, a representation signed by 15

candidates in hard copy and 280 online signatures
was submitted to Respondent No.1.

14.05.2015

Another representation dated 14.05.2015 was sent by

the present counsel on behalf of all the candidates
seeking re-evaluation of all the papers of the main
examination of DJS, 2014 by persons of unquestioned
fairness. Till today, there is no reply to any of these
representations and as per the announcement dated
27.07.2015, the interviews are going to be held on
06.08.2015 on the basis of already declared results.

28.05.2015

The Delhi High Court in an RTI reply has admitted that

there are no set criteria and no model answers are
provided to the examiners.

18.06.2015

The Union Law Minister wrote to the Honble Chief

Justice of the High Court of Delhi wherein he has
mentioned that there were allegations that kin of the
sitting judges of the Delhi High Court have been
favoured in the said exam. As per the said letter, Rank
1 and rank 3 are the children of sitting High Court
judges.

27.07.2015

The Respondent announced the interview dates for

06.08.2016.

28.07.2015

Hence, the present writ petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
MS. KAMINI JAISWAL
E-77, SAKET,
1st FLOOR
NEW DELHI
kaminijaiswal@gmail.com
PAN No.AAATT9641G
9810238874

PETITIONER
Versus

The Registrar General of the

High Court of Delhi
Shershah Marg,
New Delhi-110001

.RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA
To,
The Honble Chief Justice of India
And his companion judges of the Honble Supreme Court
Most respectfully showeth:
1.

That the present writ petition is being filed in public interest

under Article 32 of the constitution. The Petitioner herein is
challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method
adopted in the Main (Written) Examination of Delhi Judicial

Service, 2014 (DJS) on the grounds of being unreasonable,

arbitrary and hence, in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. In an examination written by 653 candidates
only 15 students (13 from General Category and 2 from
reserved category) have been selected for the interview for total
80 vacancies. At least 68 candidates, who appeared for the
Main Exam but not selected for the interview, are those who
have already cleared judicial examinations of other States and
most of them are sitting judges in their respective states.
Further, many of them are apparently toppers in the judicial
exams of their respective states or toppers and gold medalists
in their respective law colleges. Several candidates are
apparently LL.M. holders from reputed institutions like ILI
(Indian Law Institute, Delhi) and NLS (National Law School,
Bangalore) and several candidates are NET (National Eligibly
Test) qualified law lecturers in esteemed law colleges like Delhi
University Law Faculty (DU).
Moreover, it was widely reported in the media that the Union
Law Minister had received several complaints in this regard
and had also written to the Honble Chief Justice of the High
Court of Delhi wherein he has mentioned that there were
allegations that kin of the sitting judges of the Delhi High Court
have been favoured in the said exam. Now the said letter is also
in public domain. The Petitioner is, therefore, also praying for
constitution of an independent Judicial Service Commission

for conducting examinations for selection of lower judicial

officers.
1A.

That the petitioner CPIL is a registered society (No.S-14654). It

is a non-profit body. The petitioner society is a public interest
organization which has been in the vanguard of the campaign
for public probity in public life and integrity in institution. Over
the years, it has earned a reputation and credibility for its
initiatives in public interest litigation. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,
General Secretary of the organization, is authorized to file this
petition. The requisite certificate & authority letter are filed
along with vakalatnama. Its founder President was Late Shri
V.M. Tarkunde and its Executive Committee consists of several
senior Advocates including Shri F.S. Nariman, Shri Shanti
Bhushan, Shri Anil Divan, Shri Collin Gonsalves and others.
The Petitioner has earlier filed several important public interest
petitions including one challenging the allotment of oil and gas
dealership through the discretionary quota of the Minister as
well as through the Oil Selection Board. The Petitioner had
also challenged the transfer of developed oil fields of Panna &
Mukta from ONGC to Reliance and Enron. The Petitioner has
also successfully challenged the Governments decision to
disinvest and privatise the Government Oil Companies without
seeking Parliamentary approval. The Petitioner had also filed a
Petition seeking comprehensive administrative guidelines for
securing the citizens right to information. The Petitioner also
filed several other petitions on important issues of public

interest like on the health hazards of consumption of Soft

Drinks due to the chemical additives present in them.
Recently, the Petitioner has successfully filed PILs raising the
issue of coal scam and scam in allotment of 2 G spectrum in
which Court monitored CBI investigation was directed by this
Honble Court. It also successfully challenged the illegal
appointment of Mr. P. J. Thomas as the Central Vigilance
Commissioner.
The Petitioner has no personal interest, or private/oblique
motive in filling the instant petition. There is no civil, criminal,
revenue or any litigation involving the petitioner which has or
could have a legal nexus with the issues involved in the PIL. It
is in public interest that the selection of the judicial officers is
done in fair and transparent manner.
The petitioner society has not made any representation to the
Honble High Court since the students as well as the present
counsel, on behalf of the students, had already approached the
Honble High Court through their separate representations
(Annexure P 5 & 6). Despite the said representations and also
the letter by the Union Law Minister, the Honble High Court is
going ahead with already declared results and has announced
the date of interview for 06.08.2015.
2.

That most of the documents annexed with the present writ

petition are in public domain and some of them have been
obtained under the RTI Act.

Brief facts of the case:

3.

On 18.02.2014, after a gap of three years, an advertisement was

issued for recruitment to 80 vacancies of Delhi Judicial Service
(DJS). Out of 80 vacancies, 55 were for the General Category
candidates. The exam was to be held in three parts, the
preliminary examination, the main examination and the
interview. Copy of the advertisement dated 18.02.2014 is being
annexed hereto as Annexure P1 (from page nos. _____to _____).

4.

The preliminary examination was conducted on 01.06.2014. A

total 9033 students took the preliminary examination.

5.

Total 659 out of 9033 candidates who successfully cleared the

preliminary examination appeared for the Main examination
which was held on 10th and 11th October, 2014. As per the
advertisement, a candidate was required to get 50% marks in
aggregate and 40% in each subject in the Main Examination to
be selected for the interview.

6.

The result of the Main Examination was announced after almost

8 months on 01.05.2015 wherein only 15 students (13 from
General Category and 2 from reserved category) have been
selected for viva voice test for 80 vacancies. Thus, 98% of the
students were failed and only 2% were found suitable for final
round. It is submitted that normally three times the number of
seats notified are called for interview test. Apparently, in 2010,
120 candidates were called for interview for 27 seats of DJS and
in 2011, 75 candidates were selected for 23 seats. Copy of the

result of Main examination of DJS 2014 is being annexed hereto

as Annexure P2 (from page nos. _____to _____).
7.

It would be pertinent hereto mention that at least 68 candidates,

who appeared for the Main Exam but not selected for the
interview, are

those

who

have already cleared

judicial

examinations of other States like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal

Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Orissa, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and most of them are sitting
judges in their respective states. Copy of the list of successful
candidates of the judicial services of other states with their
marks in the present Main Exam is being annexed hereto as
Annexure P3 (from page nos. _____to _____). Copies of the
merit lists of successful candidates of the judicial services of
other states are annexed hereto as Annexure P4 (from page
nos. _____to _____).
8.

As per the information available to the Petitioner, at least 6

candidates, who have not been selected for the interview, are 1st
rank holders in the judicial exams of their respective states, and
at least 3 candidates are 2nd rank holders in their respective
judicial exams. Copy of the list of the candidates who are
toppers or second rank holders in their respective judicial
exams of other states is annexed hereto as Annexure P5 (from
page nos. _____to _____).

9.

Further, the Petitioner has learnt, as per the representation by

the candidates, that at least three candidates, who have not

been found suitable for the interview test in DJS, 2014, have
cleared the judicial service exams of two different states. The
names of these three candidates with their respective states are
Shivdan Choudhary (cleared Gujarat and Rajasthan), Akanksha
Garg (cleared UP and Rajasthan), Nahid Sultana (cleared UP
and Jharkhand).
10. Apparently, at least 2 candidates, had been in judicial service
since 2011 in Haryana and at the time of the exam - had an
experience of 4 years each of sitting on the bench. They are
Neetika Bhardwaj and Mansi Dhiman, both of them from the
2011 batch of the Haryana Judicial Services.
11. It further appears from the representation of the candidates that
some of the candidates who have not been found fit for being
called for the interview are the toppers and gold medalists in
their respective law colleges. Several candidates are LL.M.
holders from reputed institutions ILI (Indian Law Institute,
Delhi) and NLS (National Law School, Bangalore) and several
candidates are NET (National Eligibly Test) qualified law
lecturers in esteemed law colleges like Delhi University Law
Faculty (DU).
12. On 11th May 2015, a representation signed by 15 candidates in
hard copy and 280 online signatures candidates was submitted
to Respondent No.1. Another representation dated 14.05.2015
was sent by the counsel on behalf of all the candidates seeking
re-evaluation of all the papers of the main examination of DJS,

2014 by persons of unquestioned fairness. Till today, there is

no reply to any of these representations and as per the
announcement dated 27.07.2015, the interviews are going to be
held on 06.08.2015 on the basis of already declared results.
Copy of the representation dated 11.05.2015 sent by the
students is being annexed hereto as Annexure P6 (from page
nos.

_____to

_____).

Copy

of

the

representation

dated

14.05.2015 sent by the counsel is being annexed hereto as

Annexure P7.
14. On 28th May 2015, the Delhi High Court admitted in an RTI
reply that there is no set criteria in checking and that no
model answers were provided to the examiners. Copy of the
RTI reply dated 28.05.2015 is being annexed hereto as
Annexure P8 (from page nos. ______to ______).
15. Further, it was widely reported in the media that the Union Law
Minister has received several complaints in this regard and had
also written to the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court of
Delhi wherein he has mentioned that there were allegations that
kin of the sitting judges of the Delhi High Court have been
favoured in the said exam. As per the said letter, which is now
in public domain, Rank 1 and rank 3 are children of sitting High
Court judges. Copy of the letter dated 18.06.2015 the Union
Law Minister written to the Honble Chief Justice of the High
Court of Delhi is being annexed hereto as Annexure P9 (from
page nos. ______to ______). Copy of the Indian Express report
dated 26 June 2015 is being annexed hereto as Annexure P10

(from page nos. _____to ______). Copy of the Economic Times

report dated 26 June 2015 is being annexed hereto as
Annexure P11 (from page nos. _____to ______). Copy of the
Indian Express report dated 30 June 2015 is being annexed
hereto as Annexure P12 (from page nos. _____to ______). Copy
of the Indian Express report dated 06 July 2015 is being
annexed hereto as Annexure P13 (from page nos. _____to
______).
16. The Honble High Court of Delhi announced the interview dates
for 06.08.2016. Copy of the Notice dated 27.07.2015 issued by
the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi announcing the
date for holding the interviews on 06.08.2015 is being annexed
hereto as Annexure P14 (from page nos. _____to _____).
17. Therefore, the Petitioner is filing the present writ petition
seeking quashing the result of Main Exam of DJS 2014 and also
asking for re-evaluation of all the papers of the students. The
Petitioner has not filed any other petition raising the issue
raised in the present writ petition in any other court of this
country.
17. The present writ petition is being filed on the following grounds
amongst others:
GROUNDS
A. Because

the

evaluation

method

appears

to

be

so

unreasonable and irrational that 98% candidates which

apparently includes toppers/gold medalist of their respective

law schools and other States judicial service exams could not
clear the Main Examination. Those candidates who have
already

proved

his

ability

and

merit

by

performing

exceptionally well in their respective colleges and also by

getting selected in other judicial service exams could not be
found suitable for even the interview test. Hence, the
selection process or evaluation method adopted for DJS
appears to be totally unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary,
hence, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
B. Because the results of the Main Exam of DJS, 2014 show
that there is a serious problem with the evaluation method of
the exam, which is being conducted for selecting the judicial
officers in Delhi by the High Court, and unless this evaluation
method or selection process for DJS is re-examined to make
it more rational and reasonable, without compromising on
merits, one of the most important factors responsible for
huge pendency or delay in justice i.e. lack of sufficient
number of judicial officers will not be tackled.
C. Because this kind of selection process will further demotivate
several other meritorious students of good law schools from
choosing judicial services as their career option. The
students with good academic records would never appear in
the exams having such unreasonable selection method and
especially when they are not taking place at regular intervals.
D. Because, as per the RTI reply, no set criteria in checking or
model answers were provided to the examiners. When there

are no uniform criteria for checking, there is possibility that

the selection is done on the basis of non-standardized and
non-uniform understanding of each and every examiner.
E. Because as per the media reports the Union Law Minister has
also written to the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court of
Delhi wherein he has mentioned that there were allegations
that kin of the sitting judges of the Delhi High Court have
been favoured in the said exam. As per the said letter, which
is now in public domain, Rank 1 and rank 3 are children of
sitting High Court judges and rank 9.
F. Because this Honble Court in the case of Sanchit Bansal v.
Joint Admission Board, (2012) 1 SCC 157 has clearly
observed that the courts can interfere in the examination
process if the procedure adopted is arbitrary.
G. Because the aforesaid selection process also illustrates the
need of adopting uniform selection procedures for appointing
judicial officers through an independent Judicial Service
Commission. In some of the states like Bihar, UP,
Uttarakhand,

Odisha,

Himachal

Pradesh,

Jharkhand,

Haryana, Punjab the entire selection of lower judicial officers

is done through their respective public service commissions.
However, in the States like Delhi, Rajasthan, MP, Gujarat,
their

respective

High

Courts

themselves

conduct

examinations and do final selections. In a selection system

where the High Court itself conducts the examinations for
selection of the judicial officers, the possibility of conflict of

interest or even allegation of bias cannot be ruled out. In

order to eliminate all likelihoods of conflict of interest or
allegation of bias, there must be a uniform transparent
system of examination for selection of judicial officers
through an independent Judicial Service Commission.
PRAYERS
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this
Honble Court may be pleased to pass the following orders:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to
quash the result of the Main Exam of the Delhi Judicial
Service, 2014 declared on 01.05.2015;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to
get the re-evaluation done of all the papers of the Main Exam
of all the students who appeared in the said examination by
an independent expert committee preferably headed by a
retired judge of the High Court;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction for
the

constitution

of

an

independent

Judicial

Service

Commission for selection of the lower judicial officers; and

(d) Pass any other order as this Honble court may deem fit and
proper.

Petitioners Through
New Delhi
Dated

(Prashant Bhushan)
Counsel for the Petitioners

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

Centre for Public Interest Litigation

Petitioner

versus

Registrar General of
The High Court of Delhi

Respondent

AN APPLICATION FOR STAY/INTERIM DIRECTION ON BEHALF

OF THE PETITIONER
To,
The Honble Chief Justice of India
And his companion judges of the Honble Supreme Court

1. That the present writ petition under Article 32 is being filed in

public interest. The Petitioner is challenging the entire selection
process and evaluation method adopted in the Main exam in the
DJS 2014 on the grounds of being unreasonable, arbitrary and
hence, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. That the facts of the writ petition are not being mentioned here
for the sake of brevity and the same may be considered part of
the present Application.

3. That on 11th May 2015, a representation by some of the

candidates was submitted to Respondent No.1. Another
representation dated 14.05.2015 was sent by the counsel on
behalf of all the candidates seeking re-evaluation of all the
papers of the main examination of DJS, 2014 by persons of
unquestioned fairness. Till today, there is no reply to any of
these representations and as per the announcement dated
27.07.2015, the interviews are going to be held on 06.08.2015
on the basis of already declared results. If the selection process
of the DJS, 2014 is not stayed during the pendency of the
present writ petition, it would cause irreparable damage to the
un-successful candidates and the present petition would
become infructuous.
PRAYERS
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, during the
pendency of the present writ petition, this Honble may be pleased
to:
(a) Stay the interview/viva-voce test which is going to be held on
06.08.2015 for the Delhi Judicial Services, 2014, as announced
vide Notice dated 27.07.2015 by the Respondent;
(b) Get the re-evaluation done of all the papers of the Main Exam
of all the students who appeared in the said examination by an
independent expert committee preferably headed by a retired
judge of the High Court and
(c) Pass any other order as this Honble Court may deem fit and
proper.

Petitioners
Through
New Delhi
Dated

(Prashant Bhushan)
Counsel for the Petitioners

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL WRIT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. ___________OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

.PETITIONER

Versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL, THE HIGH
COURT OF DELHI

RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT

I, Kamini Jaiswal D/o Shri R S Jaiswal, General Secretary of the

petitioner society, r/o E-77, 1st Floor, Saket, New Delhi -110017, do
hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:

1.

That I am the General Secretary of the Petitioner Society in the

abovementioned Writ Petition and being familiar with the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am competent and authorised
to swear this Affidavit.

2.

That I have read and understood the accompanying Synopsis

and List of dates (from page nos. _____to ______), writ petition
(from page nos. ______to ______), application for interim
direction (from page nos. ______to _______) and application for
exemption from filing officially translated copies of annexure
and I state that the facts mentioned therein are believed to be
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that nothing
material has been concealed therefrom. The annexures of the

writ petition are true copies/translations of their respective

originals.
3.

The sources of the information contained in the present petition

are notifications, advertisement issued for DJS, 2014, the
results of different exams, representation dated 11.05.2015
sent by the candidates, information obtained under the Right to
Information Act, newspaper reports and the letter dated
18.06.2015 which is in public domain.

4.

That this petition is only motivated by public interest. I affirm

that I have no personal interest in this matter.

5.

That I have done whatsoever enquiry that was possible and I

state that no relevant facts in my knowledge have been
withheld.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of
the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, that no part
of it is false and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this

day of ________2015.

DEPONENT

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

Centre for Public Interest Litigation

Petitioner

versus

Registrar General of
The High Court of Delhi

Respondent

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIALLY

TRANSALTED COPY OF ANNEXURES
To,
The Honble Chief Justice of India
And his companion judges of the Honble Supreme Court

1. That the present writ petition under Article 32 is being filed in

public interest. The Petitioner is challenging the entire selection
process and evaluation method adopted in the Main exam in the
DJS 2014 on the grounds of being unreasonable, arbitrary and
hence, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. That the facts of the writ petition are not being mentioned here
for the sake of brevity and the same may be considered part of
the present Application.
5. That some of the annexures are in Hindi and the same have
been translated into English by a person who is well conversant

in both the languages. The Petitioner could not get the

translation done through an official translator due to paucity of
time.
PRAYERS
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances this Honble
may be pleased to:
(d) Exempt the Petitioner from filing officially translated copies of
annexure; and
(e) Pass any other order as this Honble Court may deem fit and
proper.

Petitioners
Through
New Delhi
Dated
Counsel for the Petitioners

(Prashant Bhushan)