August,5,2015: A Division Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant of Supreme Court today issued notice to the Delhi High Court in a public interest litigation filed by the Centre for PIL. The petition alleges arbitrary valuation, and selection of candidates in the Delhi Judicial Service Exam, 2014. After CLAT, NEET, Vyapam and other examination controversies which the Supreme Court had to deal with, a new addition to the list – the Delhi Judicial Service Exam, 2014.
The Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) through Advocate Prashant Bhushan challenged the results of the DJS 2014 mains exam before the apex court. The Delhi high court’s registrar general, who had filed a caveat for advance notice in the writ, appeared through standing counsel ADN Rao.
The 2014 Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) exam’s controversial results were not stayed, but may be probed after the Supreme Court’s order in a writ today. The DJS will hold its interviews for selection of Judges in Delhi on Thursday, as per schedule.
<>Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant admitted the writ today in the afternoon but did not grant a stay on the selection process because the interviews are due to happen in two days from today, a source close to the process.
When the matter was taken up as a listed mentioning case at 2 pm, Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner Association submitted that while around 20,000 candidates wrote the preliminary exam only 15 were selected for an interview.
“Many of the aggrieved who came to me are candidates who had topped judicial services exam in their respective States. They had chosen to give the Delhi Judicial Service Exam for personal reasons. There are 80 vacancies and only 15 have been selected for the interview. Most of the aggrieved candidates have very good academic track record.”
Advocate ADN Rao, standing counsel for Delhi High Court, replied that there was nothing unusual in selecting few candidates and it has happened before also.
Justice Dipak Misra remarked that the case is per se a service matter and not an Article 32 petition but said that he would hear it.
However, the judges did make the final results of the selection process subject to the outcome of CPIL’s writ, the source said.
The case would be heard next in five weeks from today.
DJS candidates have alleged foul play in the conduct of the DJS 2014, in which 64 district judges from outside Delhi were failed despite quite a few having topped their respective state judicial service exam, while the relatives of sitting Delhi high court judges cleared the exam.
Only 15 candidates cleared the DJS 2014 mains exam despite their being more than 570 vacancies in the Delhi lower judicial service, in theory.
The DJS exam was held in July last year, pursuant to a notification that was issued after a period of three years. A total of 9,033 candidates appeared for the Prelims. Out of these, 659 students cleared the Prelims and became eligible to write the Mains. When the results were published in May this year, it turned out that only 15 candidates had cleared the exam, and asked to appear for the interview.
Subsequently, advocate Prashant Bhushan addressed a letter to Delhi’s Chief Justice, G Rohini expressing certain reservations about the exam and evaluation methods. Bhushan’s letter also underlined the abysmally low number of successful candidates, and requested a fair re-evaluation. The matter took a political turn when Bhushan made the letter public. Soon thereafter, Union Law Minister Sadananda Gowda wrote a letter to Justice Rohini and personally requested her to look intothe allegations surrounding the Exam.
Meanwhile, JD (U) Chief Sharad Yadav too had jumped in the fray and wrote to Gowda seeking his timely intervention in the matter. In addition, an online petition was also floated by unsuccessful candidates, requesting a review into the results.
The interviews of 15 candidates will be held tomorrow i.e. August 6 2015.
26.7.2015 – Delhi Lawyers Body calls Delhi Judicial Service selections a ‘SCAM’, seeks Probe READ MORE…
Read the Full Text of Petition filed in Supreme Court-