Delhi High Court - Orders
Gourav Rajput vs Delhi High Court on 2 February, 2024
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Amit Bansal
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1554/2024
GOURAV RAJPUT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr B S Chauhan, Adv.
versus
DELHI HIGH COURT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Shashank Garg with Ms Vagmi
Singh and Ms Aradhya Chaturvedi,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 02.02.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.6398/2024
1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three (03) days before the next date of hearing. W.P.(C) 1554/2024
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.
W.P.(C) 1554/2024 1/3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2024 at 21:16:02
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.
W.P.(C) 1554/2024 2/3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2024 at 21:16:02
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.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J AMIT BANSAL, J FEBRUARY 2, 2024/pmc Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 1554/2024 3/3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2024 at 21:16:03