UMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 02-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

367 
UMESH ceANDRA S1lllKLA J!TC, ETC, 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS, 
AUGUST 2, 1985 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAll AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Article 234 & Delhi Judicial 
Service Rules, Rules 16, 17 and 18 
Subordinate Judges - Recruitment of - Service Rules provid-
A 
B 
ing for written examination and viva voce test and prescribing 
c 
miniuaun marks for qualifying - High Court by Full Court decision 
adding two marks to marks obtained in each written paper of 
Candidate by way of moderation -
Selection C()lllmittee fixing 
minimum of 60% marks in aggregate after viva voce test - Full 
Court and Selection C()lllmittee decisiona -
Whether valid and 
proper. 
D 
Recruitment to the Delhi Judicial Services was goveroed by 
the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970. Rule 13 thereof provided 
that after the initial recruitment, recruitments shall be made on 
the basis of a competitive examination to be held by the High 
Court. Rule 14 prescribed the miniDllm qualification for a candi-
date to be eligible to appear at the cmpetitive examination, 
viz. (a) citizen of India, (b) a person practising as an advocate 
or qualified to be admitted as an advocate; and (c) not more than 
32 years of age. 
Rule 15 provided that the syllabus for the 
examination and the fee payable shall be as detailed in the 
Appendix to the Rules. 
The examination was to consist of five 
written papers and a viva voce teat. Cluaee (b) of the AppendU 
dealt with viva voce, and provided that: "Only such candidates 
will be called for viva voce who have obtail!ed 50% in each 
written paper and 60% in the aggregate ei:cept in the case of 
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes in whoa& case 
the qualifying marks will be 40% in each written paper lllld 50% in 
the aggregate•. 
The marks obtained in the viva voce was to be 
added to the marks obtained in the written papers and the candi-
dates, rank depended on the aggregate of both. Rule 16 provided 
that after the written teat the High Court was to arrange the 
names of candidates in order of merit and the names to be sent to 
the Selection Comnittee. 
Rules 17 and 18 provided that tbe 
Selection Conmittee shall call for the viva voce test only aueh 
E 
F 
G 
B 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
A 
candidates who qualified in the written test, and af cer the viva 
voce teat the Selection Committee was to prepare a list of candi-
dates in order of merit and to forward the same to the Adminis-
trator .. 
B 
c 
D 
The Registrar of the Delhi High Court through a notification 
called for application from eligible persons for filing the posts 
in the Delhi Judicial Service. A large number of candidates who 
were eligible applied in response thereto. 
The examination in 
the written papers were held and after the answer books were 
valued, the names of 27 candidates who were eligible for the viva 
voce test under the Rules were published on the Notice Board. 
These candidates were admitted to the viva voce test by the 
Selection Committee. Before the final list of the candidates was 
published by the Selection Committee aa required by Rule 18, the 
petitioners in the Writ Petition came tu know that the names of 
certain candidates whose names had not been included in the above 
list of 27 qualified candidates were included in the final list 
by the Selection Committee and that the names of certain candi-
dates who had been interviewed by the Selection Comn1 ttee had 
been omitted from the said final list. 
' ' 
The petitioners in that writ petition question the validity 
of the 
procedure adopted by the High Court and the Selection 
ec-ittee in the preparation of the final list of successful 
candidates and contended that it was not open to the High Court 
E 
to include in the list prepared under Rule 16 names of the candi-
dates who had not secured the mininum marks prescribed for eligi-
bility to appear in the viva voce test and that it was not open 
to the Selection Committee or the High Court to omit the names of 
certain candidates who had appeared at the viva voce test from 
the final list. 
F 
The writ petitions were contested and opposed by the High 
Court, by contending that the petitioners had no right to 
maintain the writ petitions and that the High Court had treated 
all candidates equally. It was further contended that the results 
of the written examination were placed before the Full court for 
G 
approval, and that the Full Court approved the initial list
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.