Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Aalma vs Delhi High Court on 26 September, 2023

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia

     ITEM NO.20                                COURT NO.2                        SECTION XIV

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F               I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)                            No(s).   22134/2022

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-10-2022
     in WP(C) No. 13223/2022 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
     Delhi)

     AALMA                                                                        Petitioner(s)

                                                       VERSUS

     DELHI HIGH COURT                                                             Respondent(s)

     ([FOR DISPOSAL] )

     Date : 26-09-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA


     For Petitioner(s)                    Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
                                          Ms. Aniteja Sharma, Adv.
                                          Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR

     For Respondent(s)                    Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR
                                          Mr. Aditeya Bali, Adv.

                                          Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR

                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                 O R D E R

Leave granted.

Prima facie we are of the view that for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/ Restorer to have a percentage of interview marks of 25 out of 125 would amount to 20 per cent weightage for an interview which is carried out by three Registrars of the Court.

The matter does not rest at this as the minimum interview marks 16:37:52 IST Reason:

have also been provided. The irony of the situation is apparent from the fact that the appellant before us would otherwise fall in a category of OBC having the highest marks but for the disqualification on not getting minimum marks of 11 and getting 10 marks.

On a query from the Court as to how many candidates were interviewed and over what period of time, it transpires that on an average each candidate would get about five minutes to be interviewed.

We have issued leave in the matter as we would like to examine whether the aforesaid kind of conditions can be provided for in post of this nature.

In the meantime, looking to the factual scenario of the appellant, we grant an interim direction for appointment of the appellant and the necessary formalities to be completed within 15 days from today.

Needless to say the appointment will be made subject to the final judgment in the matter.

List in the category of after notice miscellaneous matters on 07th November, 2023.

Learned counsel for the parties to file short synopsis running into not more than three pages each.

In the meantime, learned counsel for the respondent to place relevant rules on record, as prayed for.

(RASHMI DHYANI PANT)                                       (POONAM VAID)
   COURT MASTER                                            COURT MASTER

                                         2