WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

1. ANSHUMAN DHUNNA
Residing at: D-172 Shastri
Nagar , Meerut, Up-250001

2. MOHIT KUMAR PRASAD

Residing at: 531, Mukherjee
Nagar, New Delhi-110009

3. RITIKA KANSAL
Residing at: 1276, Sector-37b,
Chandigarh- 160036

4. SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA

Residing at: Type-5, Flat
No.103, Residential Block,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi-32

5. ANIL NARWAL
Residing at: VPO Waiser,
Tehsil- Madlauda, District-
Panipat, Haryana

6. KARUNA
Residing at: H. No. 44,
Shahpur Garhi, Narela, Delhi-
110040

7. RAGHAVENDRA BHARDWAJ
Residing at: 412/3, Prem
Nagar, Gurugram-122001

8. RAJAT MOUDGIL
Residing at: Flat No. 1403,
San Marinee Apartments,
Sector-45, Gurugram-122001
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

9. SURBHI BHATIA
Residing at: D-11, Hno. 140,
Second Floor, Sector-8,
Rohini, Delhi-110085

10. JYOTI VASHISHT

Residing at: H. No.154P,
Second Floor, Sector-5 Part-3,
Gurugram-122001

11. PRATIBHA
Residing at: B-41/D, Street
No.12, Jagat Puri Extn.
Shahdara, Delhi-93

12. SAKSHI GOYAL

Residing at: 303, Ashirwad
Apartments, Boring Road,
Patna- 800001

13. ANIMESH KUMAR

Residing at: B-15/13, ONGC
Colony, Phase-1, Magdalla,
Surat-3995418

14. TANYA ROHILLA

Residing at: A-303, Aashta
Apartments, Plot No. 19B,
Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi-
75

15. RANVIJAY RANA

Residing at: 848, Sector-9,
Karnal, Haryana

16. ADITYA JAISWAL

Residing at: H. No.215, N-19,
Vikas Nagar Awasiya Colony,
Gorakhpur

17. APOORVA TAMRAKAR

Residing at: H. No.11, Shri
Ramsharnam Colony,
Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal, Mp
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

18. DEV CHAUDHARY

Residing at: 43, Sector 15-A,
Hisar-125001, Haryana

19. NEHA SAINI

Residing at: H. No. 609-C,
Faridkot Cantt, Faridkot-
151203

20. RANJANA RANI

Residing at: Roshanpura
Road, Ismailabad,
Kurukshetra, Haryana

21. ANUJ BAHAL

Residing at: 659, Dr.
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-
110009

22. MARYADA SHARMA

Residing at: Buddhashish,
Ganga Colony, Bansur Road,
Kotputli, District- Jaipur,
Rajasthan- 303108.

23. KUMAR RAHUL

Residing at: Shastrinagar,
Near Forest Range Office,
District- Dumka, Jharkhand- PETITIONER
814101.

VERSUS

1. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Shershah Marg,
New Delhi - 110001

Respondents

(All are contesting Respondents)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING AN APPROPRIATE
WRIT AND DIRECTION TO QUASH THE RESULT OF THE
MAIN WRITTEN EXAM 2015 OF THE DELHI JUDICIAL
SERVICE EXAMINATION, 2015 DECLARED ON
12.07.2017 AND RE-EVALUTION OF ALL THE PAPERS
OF THE MAIN EXAM OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BY
AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT COMMITTEE PREFERABLY
HEADED BY A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE HONBLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AS THE ENTIRE SELECTION
PROCESS BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS AS ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 14, 16 AND 21
OF THE CONSTITTUTION OF INDIA

TO
HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE SPECIAL LEAVEPETITION

OFTHE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Writ Petition is being filed under

Article 32 of the Constitution whereby the Petitioners

herein are seeking an appropriate writ and direction

to quash the result of the main written exam 2015 of

the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015

declared on 12.07.2017 and re-evalution of all the

papers of the main exam of the petitioners herein by

an independent expert committee preferably headed

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

by a retired judge of the Honble Supreme Court of

India as the entire selection process is in violation of

the fundamental rights as enshrined under Article

14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In an

examination written by 914 candidates only 63

students have been selected for the interview for total

100 vacancies. Many 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

and several candidates are NET (National Eligibility

Test) qualified law lecturers in esteemed law colleges.

The Petitioners are therefore, also praying for

constitution of an independent Judicial Service

Commission for conducting examinations for

selection of lower judicial officers.

1A The petitioners have made a representation dated

26.07.2017 to the Honble High Court of Delhi since
the petitioners felt that the examination has not been
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

held in a free and fair manner thereby seeking

revaluation of their papers. Despite the said
representations and the copies being forwarded to
various other office bearers of respondent, there has
been no response from the respondent and the
process of viva voice is going ahead and the dates for
the oral interview are likely to be declared at the
earliest.

1B. 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.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW

The present writ petition inter alia raises the following

important and substantial questions of law of general

public importance:

I. Whether the entire Selection Process for the

Main (Written) Examination of Delhi Judicial

Service, 2015 (DJS) is vitiated as being biased,

arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by

this Honble Court in its various judgments

holding the field of law?

II. Whether the results of the Main (Written)

Examination of Delhi Judicial Service, 2015

(DJS) declared on 12.07.2017 are completely in

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

flagrant disregard to the orders passed by this

Honble Court in the case of Centre for Public

Interest Litigation Vs. High Court of Delhi vide

W.P. (Civil) No. 514 of 2015 directing the

respondent to follow certain directions for

conducting of examination in the future?

III. Whether the conduct of the respondent while

declaring the results of Main (Written)

Examination of Delhi Judicial Service, 2015

(DJS) on 12.07.2017 is in clear contempt of the

orders of this Honble Court passed in W.P.

(Civil) No. 514 of 2015 and hence ought to be

reprimanded?

IV. Whether the results of Main (Written)

Examination of Delhi Judicial Service, 2015

(DJS) are clearly in the teeth of the law laid

down by this Honble Court in the case of

Sanjay Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service

Commission reported in 2007(3) SCC 720 and

thereby warranting a grant of revaluation of the

answer-sheets?
WWW.LIVELAW.IN

V. Whether the manner of examination of answer-

sheets and declaration of results contrary to

clear directions issued by this Honble Court in

W.P. (Civil) No. 514 of 2015 shows

arbitrariness, nepotism, favoritism, mala fides

and lack of transparency in the entire selection

process rendering it violative of Art. 14 of the

Constitution of India?

VI. Whether the entire selection process is contrary

to the law laid down by this Honble Court in

the case of Sujasha Mukherji Vs. High Court

of Calcutta & Ors reported in 2015 (11) SCC

395 and thereby warranting grant of

revaluation of the answer-sheets?

VII. Whether the petitioners are entitled to

revaluation of their answer-sheets of the Main

Examinations in view of the admitted fact that

no Model answer-sheet was provided to the

examiners as informed to the petitioners under

the Right to Information Act, 2005?

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

VIII. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case and to sub-serve the interest of justice,

whether revaluation of the answer-sheets ought

to be directed by an independent expert

committee preferably headed by a retired Judge

of the Honble Supreme Court of India?

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are

as follows:

3.1. All the petitioners herein are law graduates, some of

them are already judicial officers in other States but

more importantly, all of them are aspirants for the

Delhi Judicial Services and who have waited for years

together for the examination to be conducted and

thereafter for a few more years for the process of

selection to complete and now waiting furthermore

for the judicial intervention of this Honble Court

under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 32 of

the Constitution of India.

3.2. When the previous examination i.e. Delhi Judicial

Services Examination 2014 (DJSE 2014) for the

Delhi Judicial Services was held, the figures were

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

quite astonishing. Out of the 9000 odd students who

gave the preliminary examinations, eventually only

15 students were selected for the DJS after the viva-

voice round.

3.3. In response to an RTI preferred by one of the

candidate, on 28th May 2015 pertaining to DJSE

2014, the Delhi High Court has admitted that there

is no set criteria in checking and that no model

answers were provided to the examiners.

3.4. The Centre for Public Interest Litigation was therefore

constrained to file a Writ Petition bearing WP (Civil)

No. 514 of 2015 before this Honble Court

challenging the entire selection process followed in

the DJSE 2014 held by the Respondent in the most

high handed manner with serious allegations of

corruption and nepotism.

3.5. Advertisement was issued by the High Court of Delhi

inviting online applications from eligible candidates

for filing up 100 posts of Delhi Judicial Services

(DJSE 2015) in the following categories:-

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Category Number Remarks

True copy of the Advertisement dated 03.10.2015
Of Vacancies (Backlog)

General 68 40

S.C. 12 7

S.T. 20 17

Total 100 64

True copy of the Advertisement dated 03.10.2015

issued by Registrar, High Court of Delhi is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P -1 at pages

______ to ________.

3.6. This Honble Court by an order dated 14.12.2015

was please to appoint Justice P.V. Reddi, former

Judge of Honble Supreme Court of India for carrying

out revaluation of Mark-sheets. True copy of order

dated 14.12.2015 passed by this Honble Court in

W.P. (Civil) No. 514 of 2015 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE P -2 at pages ______ to

________.

3.7. The preliminary examinations for DJSE 2015 was

conducted on 20.12.2015 wherein, a total of 8534

students appeared in the preliminary examination.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

3.8. The results for the preliminary examinations of DJSE

2015 were declared wherein out of the 8534

candidates who appeared and gave the examinations,

914 candidates were selected to give the Main

examination. True copy of the results of preliminary

examinations of DJSE 2015 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE P -3 at pages ______ to

________.

3.9. On the basis of the report submitted by Justice P.V.

Reddi, names of 12 candidates were suggested for

interview and accordingly this Honble Court was

pleased to direct the interview of such additional

candidates before the Selection Committee of the

High Court of Delhi. True copy of order dated

10.03.2016 passed by this Honble Court in W.P.

(Civil) No. 514 of 2015 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE P - 4 at pages ______ to _____.

3.10. After almost a period of 7 months, the Main

examination for DJSE 2015 were conducted for the

915 successful candidates. 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.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

3.11. This Honble Court finally closed the hearing of w.r.t.

DJSE 2014, W.P. (Civil) No. 514 of 2015 after

recording the fact 11 candidates out of the 12

candidates sent for the interview were selected. Some

of the suggestions given by the petitioner were

accepted by the Honble Court and it was expected

that while conducting examinations in future,

following suggestions are kept in view:-

i. In the preliminary exams, the OMR sheets be

ordered to be filled up in pen and not pencil.

ii. Candidates be provided with copy of the

answer sheets under the RTI.

iii. In preliminary exams, names of the

successful candidates be mentioned.

iv. In checking of main papers, the procedure

laid down in 2007(3) SCC 720; (2013) 12

SCC 489 and 2015 AIR SCW 1582 shall be

kept in view.

True copy of order dated 26.07.2016 passed by this

Honble Court in W.P. (Civil) No. 514 of 2015 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P - 5

at pages ______ to ________.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

3.12. The results for the Main examinations of DJSE 2015

was finally declared after a period of almost 1 year of

unexplained delay and wherein, 63 candidates have

been shown to be selected for the oral interviews for

the total 100 vacant posts of judicial officers in Delhi.

Thus only 6.88% candidates out of the total 915

candidates who gave the Main examinations have

been found eligible for screening by viva voice.

3.13. 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. True copy of

the result of Main examination of DJSE 2015 dated

12.07.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE P -6 at pages _____ to _____.

3.14. It would be pertinent hereto mention that at least 31

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,

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and most of them are

sitting judges in their respective states. True copy of

the list of successful candidates of the judicial

services of other states with their marks in the

present Main Exam is annexed herewith and marked

as ANNEXURE P -7 at pages ______ to ________.

3.15. A representation signed by several candidates was

submitted to the Respondent, Registrar of High Court

of Delhi; Honble Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi;

Honble Chief Justice of India and several other

concerned office bearers seeking re-evaluations of all

the papers of the main examination of DJSE 2015 by

persons of unquestioned fairness. Till today, there is

no reply to any of these representations and as per

the information with the petitioners, the interviews

are going to be held very soon on the basis of already

declared results. True copy of the representation

dated 26.07.2017 of the petitioners is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P -8 at pages

______ to ________.

3.16. One of the candidates had applied under the RTI Act,

2005 for the copy of the answer sheets as he could

not believe his results and upon receiving his

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

answer-sheet, the candidate was shell shocked to

note that, in question nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Law II, the

candidate has been marked with 0 marks for a

descriptive answer, which shows the disparity and

inconsistency in marking pattern. True copy of the

question paper of Civil Law II of the Delhi Judicial

Service Main Examination (Written) 2015 dated

12.07.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE P - 9 at pages ______ to ________. True

copy of the answer sheet dated Nil is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P -10 at pages

_____ to _____.

3.17. That, one of the candidates had given RTI application

seeking information from the respondent as to

whether there is any Model Answer Key for all the

question papers and wherein a reply has been

received on 31.07.2017 that no model answer key

has been prepared for the Main Examination Written

2015 of DJS. True copy of RTI reply dated

31.07.2017 received from the respondent is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P -11 at pages

______ to ________. True copy of RTI reply dated

19.08.2017 received from the respondent is annexed

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P -12 at pages

______ to ________.

3.18. Therefore, the Petitioners are filing the present writ

petition seeking quashing of the result of Main Exam

of DJSE 2015 and also asking for re-evaluation of all

the papers of the students.

3.19. Hence the present Writ Petition

4. GROUNDS

That being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the action of

the respondent, the Petitioners seek to challenge the

same on the following, amongst other grounds, which

are taken in the alternative and without prejudice to

one another: -

a. That the manner in which the entire examination

process has been carried out by the respondent and

the unreasonable time that has been taken at each

stage of examinations clearly vitiates the entire

selection process and smacks of arbitrariness, non

application of mind and illegal manner in which the

selection is being done.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

b. That Rule 13 of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules,

1970 and the order passed by this Honble Court in

WP No. 514 of 2015 dated 26.07.2016 mandates that

the competitive examination shall be held preferably

twice a year and looking into the fact that there is

substantial backlog of vacancy in the Delhi State, the

lethargic manner in which the DJSE is held after

almost every 3 years clearly shows the zero intention

of the respondent in making any conscious effort to

reduce the pendency of cases in trial courts in the

State of Delhi. That, unless any justifiable reasons

are given for not following Rule 13, the conduct of the

respondent ought to be reprimanded. Furthermore, if

the examinations are held after every 3 years, the

students/candidates aspiring for the jobs would on

an average spend 6-7 years for giving two attempts for

the examination, which is on a very higher side. That

the respondent has no authority to play around with

careers of thousands of candidates who are aspiring

to be part of the Delhi judicial services only for the

reason that the respondent is not conducting the

examination every year. It is submitted that Delhi has

the lowest judges to population ratio in the Country

inspite of the fact that, law and order is a major

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

concern in the State. In comparison to this, the UPSC

and many State Judicial Services conduct such

examinations every year whereby opening up many

job opportunities for the aspiring candidates. Infact,

the Delhi High Court in its judgment rendered in

Sanjeet Singh Vs. High Court of Delhi (2011) has

categorically directed that the respondent is expected

to hold the examinations twice a year. Therefore, the

petitioners seek direction from this Honble Court

that, henceforth, the respondent ought to be directed

to hold the examinations strictly as per Rule 13.

c. That, the results of the DJS are shocking and

surprising as the candidate who has got highest

marks, 493, in the result declared by the Honble

Delhi High Court on July 12, 2017, Charu Dhankar

at St.No.770 has been found Not Qualified,

considering she did not have adequate marks to

qualify the 40%criteria in Criminal Law. Similarly, the

candidate who has secured 3rd highest marks in

aggregate, 480.50, Meenakshi Sharma at St.No.791,

has also been declared Not Qualified, while Rupinder

Singh Dhiman at St.No. 324 scoring 425, which is 68

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

marks less than Charu Dhankar has still been

declared as Qualified, which is far from appreciation.

d. That, on the objective appraisal, it has been found

that policy of Delhi High Court in selection of

candidates has been outright rigid and impractical

that has resulted in defeating the very purpose of

holding this examination. Comparative table of

qualifying marks in aggregate and minimum

qualifying marks in individual papers for UPSC and

some of the neighboring states(for Lower Judiciary

Examinations) illustrates it:

Sr.No. Name of the state Qualifying Minimum

/organization marks in qualifying
aggregate marks in
each
subject
1 Punjab Civil Services 50% 33%
(Judicial) Exam
2 Haryana Civil Services 50% 33%
(Judicial) Exam
3 Rajasthan Judicial 50% 35%
Services
4 Uttar Pradesh Public 50% 35%
Service Exam (Judicial)
5 Union Public Service No fixed cut No passing
Examination off 10% off marks
top
candidates
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

e. That the Respondent has not made clear as to what

uniform system is followed for the checking of papers

by the examiners. It is submitted that, this Honble

Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (2007(3) SCC 720)

has in detail discussed the concept of moderation

while examining the papers and has emphasized its

need for considerable uniformity and consistency.

That, uniformity and consistency are the cornerstone

on the basis of which all judicial services examination

should be held so that the candidates can repose

more trust in the system. That this Honble Court has

also in W.P. (Civil) No. 514 of 2015 directed the

respondent that the law as laid down in Sanjay

Singhs case will be followed in all future

examinations. However, it seems that, none of the

guidelines have been taken care of by the respondent

and therefore the petitioners are constrained to file

the present writ petition.

f. That, there is absolute lack of parity and complete

absence of moderation in the checking of the

examination papers.

Name of subjects No. of candidates scoring

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

100 or more than 100/200

(Out of 914 candidates)

Criminal Law 25

Civil Law II 89

Civil Law I 182

It is also found that, by and large, candidates have

got comparatively lesser marks in Criminal law and

Civil II as compared to Civil Law I. It also appears

that the result has been declared in a very hushed

manner, as on one hand the result was delayed by

one year and on the other hand only 6.88% of

candidates are called for interview and much below

the number of vacancies due to non-modernization of

answer sheets as laid down by Honble Supreme

Court in Sanjay Singhs case in 2007(3) SCC 720.

Therefore, the evaluation of answer sheets seems to

be completely flawed and calls for re-evaluation by a

Retired Honble Supreme Court Judge as was

directed in order dated 14.12.2015 in W.P. (Civil) No.

514 of 2015.

g. That, there is no uniform evaluation process in place

is apparent from the fact that, one of the candidates

had asked for his copy of answer-sheets under the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

RTI and upon receiving the answer sheet of Civil Law

II subject he was shocked to note that he has been

awarded zero marks for first 3 questions. This

candidate has missed the DJS Interview by a whisker

of mere 4-5 marks, hence this is incomprehensible

that a candidate with a strong score affords zero in

three questions flatly. Therefore it is apparent from

the result that no model answer-keys were given to

the examiners and there seems no chief examiner

following the moderation process. It is also apparent

from the RTI reply received on 19.08.2017 from the

respondent that the respondent has not prescribed

any model answer key for any of the four papers of

DJS Main Examination. Therefore, it is a gross case

where revaluation of answer rsheets ought to be

carried out by some independent authority under the

supervision of this Honble Court.

h. That, the respondent has no authority to deny the

candidates the right to revaluation of the answer

sheets since every candidate has the right to be

satisfied that his answer sheets have been evaluated

on the basis of the quality of his answers alone and if

there has been any mistake then he is entitled to ask

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

for revaluation being dissatisfied by the marks he has

obtained in the given subject. Further it is submitted

that, it is high time that the respondent amends its

rule to incorporate such a provision and in the

alternative this Honble Court ought to direct the

respondent to make provision for revaluation in all

the examinations to be held in the future.

i. Because the evaluation method appears to be so

unreasonable and irrational that 94% 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 their

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.

j. That the results of the Main Exam of DJS, 2015 show

that there is a serious problem with the evaluation

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

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.

k. That this kind of selection process will further de-

motivate 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.

l. That, as per the RTI reply, no model answers sheets

were provided to the examiners. When there is 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.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

m. That this Honble Court in the case of Saanchit

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.

n. That, 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 Public Service Commission. However, in States

like Delhi, Rajasthan, MP and Gujarat, the respective

High Courts themselves conduct examination 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, cannot be ruled out. In order

to eliminate all likelihoods of conflict of interest or

allegation of bias, there must be a uniform

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

transparent system of examination for selection of

judicial officers through an independent judicial

Service Commission.

o. That the marking system followed by the respondent

is also unusual and not the regular practice which is

followed by several important institutions like UPSC,

IITs, IIMs, NEET, DU, etc. The respondent has made

50% marks in aggregate and 40% marks in each of

the four papers as the condition precedent in the

MAIN Examination for selection to the Oral

Interviews. 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 MAIN exam. This way more

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

candidates get the opportunity and the Delhi Judicial

Services get the best candidates, the populace get the

best Judges and the most meritorious students are

attracted to the judiciary as a viable carrier option.

p. The examination criteria of scoring 50% aggregate

and minimum 40% in each subject for the general

category is completely flawed, considering it has been

statistically seen that the most robust method of

merit selection is ranks and not pre-determined

minimum marks. That all major institutions like

UPSC, IIT, IIM, NEET, DU and also international

exams like GRE and GMAT follow the merit list

pattern. In UPSC, the term used is minimum

qualifying marks instead of cut-off. The minimum

qualifying marks is the mark of the last candidate (in

the descending order of marks) who made it to the

List, be it MAIN List, Interview List or Final Rank List.

It may be noted that, UPSC calls 12-13 times the

number of actual vacancies reported for the

corresponding year. Again for the interview, UPSC

calls about twice the number of candidates than the

reported vacancies. On a comparative basis, for e.g.,

had UPSC followed this cut off system then: a) UPSC

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

topper of 2016: Tina Dabi would not even be allowed

to sit for the interview let alone, top the exam & b)

There would have been ZERO recruitments in 2016s

UPSC exam- as not even a single candidate of the

lakhs that appeared, scored more than 50% in the

MAIN.

q. As per the information available to the Petitioners, at

least 5 candidates, who have not been selected for the

interview, are 1st rank holders in the judicial exams of

their respective states. Further, the Petitioners have

learnt that, as per the representation by the

candidates, that at least 31 candidates, who have not

been found suitable for the interview test in DJS,

2015, are sitting judicial officers in 9 different states.

The names of these candidates with their their

respective State Judicial Services are as follows:-

Charu Dhankar, Uttar Pradesh Judiciary; Meenakshi

Sharma, Madhya Pradesh Judiciary(prev.

Uttarakhand Judiciary); Apoorva Tamrakar, Madhya

Pradesh Judiciary; Anshuman Dhunna, Uttar

Pradesh Judiciary (previously Madhya Pradesh

Judiciary); Sumit Chaudhary, Uttar Pradesh

Judiciary; Kimmi Singla, Haryana judiciary;

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Suryabhan Verma, Uttar Pradesh Judiciary; Pradeep

kushwaha Tripura topper but joined Up judicial

services; Ashutosh tiwari, UK topper; Anshu Shukla ,

Rank 1, last year in Uttar Pradesh Judiciary; Anuj

bahl, Himachal Pradesh Rank 1; Pallavi - Rank 1

Madhya Pradesh Judiciary; Krishna Agarwal,

Madhya Pradesh Judiciary; Surabhi Shree Gupta,

Himachal Pradesh Judiciary; Nyaydheesh Pankaj,

Uttar Pradesh Judiciary; Amod Kanth, Uttar Pradesh

Judiciary, (prev. Gujarat Judiciary); Shahnaz Ansari,

first in Himachal Pradesh Judiciary and then Uttar

Pradesh Judiciary; Roma bhatia, Rajasthan; Sweta

chandra, Uttar Pradesh Judiciary; Aakriti Verma,

Haryana Judiciary; Parag Yadav, Uttar Pradesh

judiciary; Anisha, Uttar Pradesh; Pritanjali Singh,

Uttar Pradesh Judiciary; Gargi Sharma Uttar

Pradesh Judiciary; Asma sultana, Uttar Pradesh

Judiciary; Isha Paty (prev. Odisha Judiciary, Rank

1); Raj Kumar Tripathi, Madhya Pradesh Judiciary;

Aparna Choudhary, Haryana; Simran Kaur,

Rajasthan; Aman Malik, Madhya Pradesh Judiciary;

Rahul Kumar (Madhya Pradesh Judiciary 13-14, but

did not join).

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

r. Apparently, at least 10-15 candidates, had been in

judicial service since 2013-14 in different states and

at the time of the exam had an experience of wide

range of years sitting on the bench.

s. Further, the Petitioner has learnt, as per the

representation by the candidates, that at least seven

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 seven candidates with their respective states

are Anshuman Dhunna, Uttar Pradesh Judiciary

prev. Madhya Pradesh; Meenakshi Sharma

Uttarakhand Judiciary prev. Madhya Pradesh;

Kanhaiya Ji Sharma Uttar Pradesh Judiciary prev.

Madhya Pradesh Judiciary; Shahnaz Ansari Uttar

Pradesh Judiciary prev. Himachal Pradesh Judiciary;

Amod Kanth Uttar Pradesh Judiciary, prev. Gujarat

Judiciary; Pradeep Kushwaha Tripura topper but

joined Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services; Nahid Sultana

Uttar Pradesh Judiciary and Jharkhand.

t. The petitioners submit that, the total vacancy

declared in the General Category was 68 and 63

candidates in total have been called for interview out

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

of which 7 candidate are from the reserved category.

Furthermore, the petitioners have come to know that,

the respondent may adjust 12 candidates who were

selected from the previous examination pursuant to

the orders passed by this Honble Court in W.P. (C)

No. 514 of 2015. The net result will be that only 56

seats are vacant in the General Category and

approximately 56 candidates would be sitting for the

interview. Therefore, if this Honble Court eventually

is to hold in favour of the petitioners then interim

relief as prayed maybe granted in the interest of

justice and equity.

u. Any other grounds as may be raised by the Petitioner

at the time of hearing.

5. The Petitioners crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to

add, alter, delete, amend, modify, the present writ
petition if required in the interest of justice.

6. The petitioners state that, they have no civil, criminal

or revenue litigation involving the petitioners, which

has or could have a legal nexus with the issue(s)

involved in the present writ petition or any other

petition pending in any of the Courts of this country.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

7. The petitioners did move the respondent on

26.07.2017, but there was no reply and hence the

present WP is filed.

8. The Petitioners state that, they have not filed any other

writ petition or any other proceeding before any of the

High Courts or Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

touching the subject matter of the present writ

petition.

9. The petitioner is therefore left with no other option but

to file the present writ petition asking for the following

prayers:

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 mandamus or any appropriate writ or

direction to quash the result of the Main Exam of the
Delhi Judicial Service, 2015 declared on 12.07.2017;
and/or

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or

direction to get the re-evalution of all the papers of
the Main Exam of the petitioners herein by an
independent expert committee preferably headed by a
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Retired Judge of the Honble Supreme Court of India;

and/or

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or

direction for the constitution of an independent
judicial Service Commission for selection of the lower
judicial officers; and/or

d) During the pendency of the present writ petition, the

process of interview sought to be carried out by the
respondent on the basis of the result declared in
Main Examination (Written) 2015 be stayed; and/or

e) Pass any other order as this Honble court may deem

fit and proper.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER
AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN & FILED BY

(NACHIKETA JOSHI)
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
Drawn on: 15.08.2017
Filed On: .08.2017
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. __________ OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF

ANSHUMAN DHUNNA AND ORS PETITIONERS

VERSUS

REGISTRAR GENERAL OF
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ...RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Anshuman Dhunna, the Petitioner no. 1 herein, Age

Adult, Occupation: Judicial Officer, Resident of: D-172

Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P. 250001, presently at New

Delhi, do solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1. That I am the petitioner No. 1 in the above mentioned

Writ Petition and as such am fully conversant with

the facts of the case and competent to swear this

affidavit.

2. That I have read the accompanying Synopsis and List

of Dates (pages B- ), Writ Petition (pages 1 to ,

paras 1 to .) and the same have been drafted as per

my instructions and I believe the same to be true to

the best of my knowledge and belief.

3. That I have not filed any other petition in this Honble

Court or before the High Court or any other Court.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

4. That the annexures P-1 to P-__ filed along with this

petition/Appeal are true copies of their respective

originals.

__________________

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that

the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief, no part of it is false and

nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the .. day of

September, 2017.

_________________

DEPONENT
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

APPENDIX

Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this

Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate

proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by

this Part is guarantee d

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue

directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature

of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto

and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the

enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the

Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by

law empower any other court to exercise within the local

limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable

by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be

suspended except as otherwise provided for by this

Constitution.

// TRUE COPY //