RAMESH KUMAR versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 01-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 256 
RAMESH KUMAR 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 57 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 01, 2010 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJI., DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. 
B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 -
r. 10 -
C Fixation of minimum Bench Marks for interview by High Court 
- Permissibility of - Appointment on the post of District 
Judges - Three vacancies reserved for Scheduled castes 
candidates - Three such candidates went through selection 
process -
Two petitioners found unsuitable on failure to 
o secure required minimum marks in interview - Writ petition 
seeking directions to High Court to appoint them on the said 
posts - Held: r. 10 does not provide for any particular 
procedure/criteria for holding the tests rather it enables High 
Court to prescribe the criteria - In absence of any statutory 
E requirement of securing minimum marks in interview, High 
Court ought to have followed the principle to offer appointment 
to candidates who had secured the requisite marks in 
aggregate in written examination as well as interview, ignoring 
the requirement of securing minimum marks in interview in 
F view of the directions issued by this court earlier in respect of 
the same issue- Out of the two petitioners' one of them having 
secured more than the required marks in aggregate, to be 
appointed - Judiciary - Service Jaw. 
Respondent rio. 1 issued an advertisement for filling 
G up twenty vacancies of District Judges. Three of the said 
vacancies were to be filled up from the Scheduled Castes 
candidates. Three candidates including two petitioners, 
belonging to the Scheduled Castes category went 
through selection process and stood qualified in the 
H 
256 
RAMESH KUMAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. 257 
written test. Respondent no. 1 found only one person 
A 
suitable for the post. Two petitioners were not found 
suitable since they did not secure the required minimum 
marks in interview. Hence the present writ petitions 
/ seeking directions to the respondents to offer 
appointment to the petitioners on the posts in the cadre 
B 
of District Judge. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In case the statutory rules prescribe a 
particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict C 
adherence accordingly. In case, no procedure is 
prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment 
in law, the competent authority while laying down the 
norms for selection may prescribe for the tests ancl 
further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test 
D 
as well as for viva-voce. [Para 13] [2&6;a-C] 
. State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 162; 
Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Ors. v. State of Orissa and 
Ors. AIR 1996 SC 352; Majeet Singh, UDC and Ors. v. 
E 
Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr. AIR 1990 
SC 1104; K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kera/a and Ors. AIR 2006 
SC 2339; Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. AIR 1981 
SC 1777; Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana 
I 
and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 454; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State 
of Orissa and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 2267; B.S. Yadav and Ors. 
v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 561; P.K. 
Ramachandra Iyer andOrs. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 
1984 SC 541; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and 
F 
· Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1351; K Manjusree v. State of Andhra 
G 
Pradesh and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 1470, relied on. 
2.1. The advertis.ement for appointment to the post 
of District Judges provided that selection process would 
be in two stages as it would comprise of written 
examination carrying 750 marks and Viva-Voce carrying 
H 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 250 marks. Respondent No.1-Delhi High Court furnished 
detailed information about the pattern of selection 
process in the instructions annexed to the application 
form. It provided 50% minimum qualifying marks in the 
written examination as well as in the interview for 
s General Category candidates and 45% for Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates; and that final 
merit list will be drawn up from among the candidates 
who have secured the stipulated minimum marks in the 
written examination and also the stipulated minimum 
c marks in the viva-voce by adding up the marks in the 
written examination and .the viva-voce. The petitioners 
were found unsuitable on the ground that they failed to 
secure minimum Bench Marks i.e. 112.50 in interview. 
[Para 6) [262-D-F] 
D 
2.2. Rule 10 of the Delhi Higher Judicial S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.