GOURAV RAJPUT vs DELHI HIGH COURT

$~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 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

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. Delhi High Court.
6. As indicated on the previous date, i.e., 02.02.2024, the respondent/Delhi High Court has already taken corrective measures, albeit for the future and, accordingly, in exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution, issued the following notification dated 18.11.2023:

“No.113/El-4/Estt.-I/DHC
Date: 18.11.2023
NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers vested under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court has been pleased to amend the note at the end of Schedule-II(A) and II(B) to Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 as under:
“***Viva-voce/interview marks shall not be more than 15% of the total marks of the written examination while making appointment through departmental examination as well as direct recruitment.”

**there will be no minimum qualifying marks in the interview”

Note: the above amendment shall be applicable in the cadres of Group ‘C’, Group ‘B’ (non-Gazetted), Group ‘B’ (Gazetted), Group ‘A’ posts both in direct recruitment as well as departmental examinations. This shall come into force with immediate effect.”
[Emphasis is ours]

7. As would be evident on a perusal of the notification extracted hereinabove, under the extant regime governing interviews for Group ‘C’, Group ‘B’ (non-Gazetted), Group ‘B’ (Gazetted) and Group ‘A’ posts, while making appointments through both departmental examination as well as direct recruitment,the viva-voce/interview marks would not exceed 15% of the total marks allocated to the written examination.
8. Furthermore, the rules have been amended to reflect that now there will be no minimum qualifying marks stipulated for the interview.
9. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the course correction came after the examination, followed by the interview, was held. The written examination was held on 19.09.2021 while the interviews for the subject post were held between 24.06.2022 to 03.07.2022. The record shows that the final list of successful candidates was published on 26.08.2022. The notification doing away with minimum marks for interview was issued on 18.11.2023.
10. In our view, the petitioner, after having taken the exam, cannot assail the procedure and rules after he was declared unsuccessful. The cause articulated in the writ petition has, however, received the attention of the court and, as noticed above, necessary course correction has been made.
11. It is the contention of Mr Chauhan that in Aalma’scase, the concerned candidate was appointed pursuant to an interim order passed by the Supreme Court, on 26.09.2023.
11.1 The interim direction, as would be evident, was made final by a subsequent order rendered by the Supreme Court on 05.12.2023, in exercise of powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution.
12. The petitioner cannot claim parity with the decision rendered in Aalma’s case. As observed above, insofar as respondent/Delhi High Court is concerned, the aforesaid aspect was brought to its notice and remedial measures were taken.
13. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
15. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the judgment.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

AMIT BANSAL, J
MARCH 1, 2024
aj

W.P.(C) 1554/2024 Page 5 of 5