1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 514 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Centre for Public Interest Litigation

PETITIONER

VERSUS
Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi RESPONDENTS
SHORT NOTE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
1. As per the affidavit filed by the respondent, the interview for the 12

candidates was conducted on 21 March 2016. For the sake of

transparency the petitioners pray that a copy of the Justice Reddi
report be made public.
2. Furthermore, to improve the examination system, the petitioners

seek the following directions:

a) In the Preliminary exams, the OMR sheets be ordered to
be filled up in pen and not pencil - this is done so that there
is no scope of foul play. This procedure is also followed in the
UPSC and IIT exam as well.
b) In the preliminary exam result, the names of candidate be
mentioned and not omitted as done in the new 2015
notification by the respondent - In the latest DJS
notification the respondent has, for some reason, omitted the
names of the candidates in the PT result. This is an obvious
attempt to make the exam less transparent so that no one can
find out if there was any favoritism or nepotism. In all the past
PT results the names of candidates have always been
mentioned.
c) In checking of the mains papers, the procedure laid down
by the 3 Supreme Court judgment be followed, in letter and
spirit the 3 judgments are Sanjay Singh [(2007) 3 SCC
720], Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar [(2013) 12 SCC 489]
and Sujasha Mukherji [2015 AIR (SCW) 1582]. The
1

procedure laid down is there must be a chief examiner, who

then sets the paper and also makes the model answers. Then
additional examiners are appointed who then check the papers
as per the model answers. And then finally the chief examiner
conducts rationalization where he basically checks if the
additional examiners checked as per his specification. Such
procedure will ensure a proper, fair and expeditious checking.
Which exactly were the elements missing in the mains
checking this time many eligible candidates were failed (as
shown by the Honble Justice PV Reddi report) and a mere 650
answer scripts took 7 months to be checked when UPSC
checks 15,000 papers in mere 3 months. And also that the RTI
reply by the respondent shows that there are no model answers
on checking. The checking has been arbitrary as it is not
following the procedure laid by this Honble court in 3
judgments which are binding as per article 141 of the
constitution of India.
d) The candidates be provided a copy of their answer scripts
under the RTI and as per two Supreme Court judgments of
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya
Bandopadhyay SC 2011) and Kerala Public Service
Commission vs State Information Commission (SC 2016).
The respondent is in clear violation of the settled law that
under the RTI act (Right to Information Act 2005), a candidate
should be given a copy of their answer scripts after checking.
The same was categorically held in the abovementioned
judgments. In the present petition, the petitioner (Vivek Jain)
had filed an RTI with the respondent on 15 October 2015
asking for copies of the answer scripts citing the Aditya
Bandopadhyay

judgment.

On

20

November

2015,

the

respondent replied by calling the petitioner for inspection but

was silent on the issue of copies and the cited judgment. Then
on 08 January 2016, the petitioner filed an appeal with the
relevant authority regarding the same and the appellate
authority ruled against the petitioner. The reason given was
2

that one time inspection is sufficient and giving physical copies

is not required.
e) Arbitrary absolute cut offs for interview qualification be
replaced with ranking method as things stand right now
anyone who get above 40% in each of the 4 papers and
minimum of 50% overall will be called for the interview. This
method is flawed because it fails to realize that merit is not
determined by arbitrary absolute standards but by relative
rankings. For example, a CBSE topper is the one who gets
marks above all the others in the class and not necessarily the
person who scores above 90%. Sometimes due to tough
question paper or strict checking, the absolute marks can go
low but the person who relatively scores highest has the most
merit, despite low marks on the face of it. So rather than having
a rule of some arbitrary number instead three times the
number of candidates should be called for the interview on the
basis of the ranks in the mains exam. This way everyone wins
the respondent get the best candidates, the populace get the
best judges and the most meritorious students are attracted to
the judiciary as a viable career option.
f) The DJS exam be held every year like the UPSC exam - It is
submitted that Delhi has one of the lowest judges to population
ratio in the world and deteriorating law and order situation is
apparent. And in such a case, it is appalling if not shameful,
that the DJS exam is conducted on average once every 3 years.
In fact the last notification before this impugned exam was in
2011. Furthermore, in Sanjeet Singh v. High Court of Delhi
(2011 Delhi High Court) it was held that the Delhi high court
is expected to conduct the DJS exam twice a year.

(Prashant Bhushan)
Counsel for the Petitioners

Dated: 13.04.2016