djs exam petition

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

Centre for Public Interest Litigation Petitioners

versus

Registrar General of

The High Court of Delhi Respondent

PAPER BOOK

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

PRASHANT BHUSHAN: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

INDEX

S.No. Particulars Page No.

1. LISTING PERFORMA

2. WRIT PETITION

3. ANNEXURE P-1: Copy of the

advertisement dated 18.02.2014.

4. ANNEXURE P-2: Copy of the result of

Main examination of DJS 2014.

5. ANNEXURE P-3: Copy of the list of

successful candidates of the judicial

services of other states with their marks in

the present Main Exam

6. ANNEXURE P-4: Copy of the merit lists of

successful candidates of the judicial

services of other states

7. ANNEXURE P-5: Copy of the list of the

candidates who are toppers or second

rank holders in their respective judicial

exams of other states.


representation dated 11.05.2015


representation dated 14.05.2015.

11. ANNEXURE P-8: Copy of the RTI reply

dated 28.05.2015

12. ANNEXURE P-9- Copy of the letter dated

18.06.2015 written by the Union Law

Minister

13. ANNEXURE P-10: Copy of the Indian

Express report dated 26 June 2015

14. ANNEXURE P-11: Copy of the Economic

Times report dated 26 June 2015

15. Annexure P-12: Copy of the Indian

Express report dated 30 June 2015

16. Annexure P-13: Copy of the Indian

Express report dated 06 July 2015

17. ANNEXURE P-14: Copy of the Notice

dated 27.07.2015 issued by the Registrar

General of the High Court of Delhi

announcing the date for holding the

interviews on 06.08.2015.

16. APPLICATION FOR STAY/INTERIM

DIRECTION

17. APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM

FILING OFFICIALLY TRNASLATED

COPIES OF ANNEXURES

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

That the present writ petition is being filed in public interest

under Article 32 of the constitution. The Petitioner is

challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method

adopted in Main (Written) Examination of Delhi Judicial

Service, 2014 (DJS) on the grounds of being unreasonable,

arbitrary and hence, in violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution. Some of the facts which indicate that the selection

process for the DJS, 2014 has not been fair or reasonable are

as follows:

(i) A total 9033 students took the preliminary examination

held on 01.07.2014 for total 80 vacancies, of which 55

were for the General Category candidates;

(ii) 659 students out of 9033, who were declared successful

in preliminary examination, took the main examination

held on 10th and 11th October, 2014;

(iii) The result of this Main Examination was declared on 1st

May 2015, almost 8 months after the exam was held.

Surprisingly, only 15 students (13 from General Category

and 2 from reserved category) have been selected for the

interview for total 80 vacancies in the result declared on

1st May 2015. That means a total of 98% of the students

were failed and only 2% managed to pass.

(iv) The ostensible explanation for selecting only 15 students,

even though normally three times the number of seats

notified are called for interview test, would be that no other

candidate could get 50% aggregate cut off marks or

required 40% cut off in all the papers.

(v) Furthermore what is remarkable is that at least 68

candidates, who appeared for the Main Exam but not

selected for the interview, are those who have already

cleared judicial examinations of other States and most of

them are sitting judges in their respective states.

(vi) At least 6 candidates, who have not been selected for the

interview, are 1st rank holders in the judicial exams of their

respective states, and at least 3 candidates are 2nd rank

holders in their respective judicial exams.

(vii) At least 3 candidates, who have not been found suitable

for the interview test in DJS, 2014, have cleared the

judicial service exams of two different states. (Shivdan

Choudhary- cleared Gujarat and Rajasthan and Akanksha

Garg- cleared UP and Rajasthan, Nahid Sultana- cleared

UP and Jharkhand)

(viii) Apparently at least 2 candidates had been in judicial

service since 2011 in Haryana and at the time of the exam

they had an experience of 4 years each of sitting on the

bench (2011 Haryana batch - Neetika Bhardwaj and Mansi

Dhiman)

(ix) The Petitioner has learnt, as per the representation by the

candidates, that some of the candidates who have not been

found fit for being called for the interview are the toppers

and gold medalists in their respective law colleges.

(x) Further, it appears from the representation of the

candidates that several candidates are LL.M. holders from

reputed institutions like ILI (Indian Law Institute, Delhi)

and NLS (National Law School, Bangalore) and several

candidates are NET (National Eligibly Test) qualified law

lecturers in esteemed law colleges like Delhi University

Law Faculty (DU).

(xi) The Delhi High Court on the 28th May 2015 in an RTI reply

has admitted that no set criteria and no model answers

were provided to the examiners.

(xii) Moreover, the Union Law Minister has received several

complaints in this regard and had also written to the

Honble Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi wherein

he has mentioned that there were allegations that kin of

the sitting judges of the Delhi High Court have been

favoured in the said exam. As per the letter of the Union

Law Minister, which is in public domain, Rank 1 and rank

3 are children of sitting High Court judges.

It is respectfully submitted that the results of the Main Exam of DJS,

2014 show that there is a serious problem with the evaluation

method of the exam, which is being conducted for selecting the

judicial officers in Delhi, and unless this evaluation method or

selection process for DJS is re-examined to make it more rational and

reasonable, without compromising on merits, one of the most

important factors responsible for huge pendency or delay in justice

i.e. lack of sufficient number of judicial officers will not be tackled.

This kind of selection process will further demotivate several other

meritorious students of good law schools from choosing judicial

services as their career option. The students with good academic

records would never appear in the exams having such unreasonable

selection method and especially when they are not taking place at

regular intervals.

Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking quashing of the aforesaid result

and also seeking re-evaluation of all the papers of the Main

Examination by an independent committee of the experts preferably

headed by some retired judge of the High Court.

Moreover, the aforesaid selection process also illustrates the need of

adopting uniform selection procedures for appointing judicial officers

through an independent Judicial Service Commission. In some of the

states like Bihar, UP, Uttarakhand, Odisha, Himachal Pradesh,

Jharkhand, Haryana, Punjab the entire selection of lower judicial

officers is done through their respective public service commissions.

However, in the States like Delhi, Rajasthan, MP, Gujarat, their

respective High Courts themselves conduct examinations and do

final selections. In a selection system where the High Court itself

conducts the examinations for selection of the judicial officers, the

possibility of conflict of interest or even allegation of bias cannot be

ruled out. In order to eliminate all chances of conflict of interest or

allegation of bias, there must be a uniform transparent system of

examination for selection of judicial officers through an independent

Judicial Service Commission.

18.02.2014 On 18.02.2014, after a gap of three years, an

advertisement was issued for recruitment to 80

vacancies of Delhi Judicial Service (DJS). Out of 80

vacancies, 55 were for the General Category

candidates. The exam was to be held in three parts,

the preliminary examination, the main examination

and the interview.

01.06.2014 The preliminary examination was conducted on

01.06.2014. A total 9033 students took the

preliminary examination.

10-11.10.14 Total 659 out of 9033 candidates who successfully

cleared the preliminary examination appeared for the

Main examination which was held on 10th and 11th

October, 2014. As per the advertisement, a candidate

was required to get 50% marks in aggregate and 40%

in each subject in the Main Examination to be selected

for the interview.

01.05.2015 The result of the Main Examination was announced

after almost 8 months on 01.05.2015 wherein only 15

students (13 from General Category and 2 from

reserved category) have been selected for viva voice

test for 80 vacancies. Thus, 98% of the students who

had cleared preliminary examination were not found

suitable for final round. It is submitted that normally

three times the number of seats notified are called for

interview test. In 2010, 120 candidates were called for

interview for 27 seats of DJS and in 2011, 75

candidates were selected for 23 seats. It would be

pertinent hereto mention that at least 68 candidates,

who appeared for the Main Exam but not selected for

the interview, are those who have already cleared

judicial examinations of other States and most of them

are sitting judges in their respective states. At least 6

candidates, who have not been selected for the

interview, are 1st rank holders in the judicial exams of

their respective states, and at least 3 candidates are

2nd rank holders in their respective judicial exams. At

least three candidates, who have not been found

suitable for the interview test in DJS, 2014, have

cleared the judicial service exams of two different

states. At least 2 candidates, had been in judicial

service since 2011 in Haryana and at the time of the

exam had an experience of 4 years each of sitting on

the bench. Some of the candidates who have not been

found fit for being called for the interview are the

toppers and gold medalists in their respective law

colleges. Several candidates are LL.M. holders from

reputed institutions like ILI (Indian Law Institute,

Delhi) and NLS (NLS, Bangalore) and several

candidates are NET (National Eligibly Test) qualified

law lecturers in esteemed law colleges like Delhi

University Law Faculty (DU). Furthermore, it is crucial

to note that the Delhi Judicial Services exam (DJS

exam) is one in which the bare act is provided and

most of the questions are application based.

11.05.2015 On 11th May 2015, a representation signed by 15

candidates in hard copy and 280 online signatures

was submitted to Respondent No.1.

14.05.2015 Another representation dated 14.05.2015 was sent by

the present counsel on behalf of all the candidates

seeking re-evaluation of all the papers of the main

examination of DJS, 2014 by persons of unquestioned

fairness. Till today, there is no reply to any of these

representations and as per the announcement dated

27.07.2015, the interviews are going to be held on

06.08.2015 on the basis of already declared results.

28.05.2015 The Delhi High Court in an RTI reply has admitted that

there are no set criteria and no model answers are

provided to the examiners.

18.06.2015 The Union Law Minister wrote to the Honble Chief

Justice of the High Court of Delhi wherein he has

mentioned that there were allegations that kin of the

sitting judges of the Delhi High Court have been

favoured in the said exam. As per the said letter, Rank

1 and rank 3 are the children of sitting High Court

judges.

27.07.2015 The Respondent announced the interview dates for

06.08.2016.

28.07.2015 Hence, the present writ petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

MS. KAMINI JAISWAL

E-77, SAKET,

1st FLOOR

NEW DELHI

[email protected]

PAN No.AAATT9641G

9810238874 PETITIONER

Versus

The Registrar General of the

High Court of Delhi

Shershah Marg,

New Delhi-110001 .RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

To,

The Honble Chief Justice of India

And his companion judges of the Honble Supreme Court

Most respectfully showeth:

1. That the present writ petition is being filed in public interest

under Article 32 of the constitution. The Petitioner herein is

challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method

adopted in the Main (Written) Examination of Delhi Judicial

Service, 2014 (DJS) on the grounds of being unreasonable,

arbitrary and hence, in violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution. In an examination written by 653 candidates

only 15 students (13 from General Category and 2 from

reserved category) have been selected for the interview for total

80 vacancies. At least 68 candidates, who appeared for the

Main Exam but not selected for the interview, are those who

have already cleared judicial examinations of other States and

most of them are sitting judges in their respective states.

Further, many of them are apparently toppers in the judicial

exams of their respective states or toppers and gold medalists

in their respective law colleges. Several candidates are

apparently LL.M. holders from reputed institutions like ILI

(Indian Law Institute, Delhi) and NLS (National Law School,

Bangalore) and several candidates are NET (National Eligibly

Test) qualified law lecturers in esteemed law colleges like Delhi

University Law Faculty (DU).

Moreover, it was widely reported in the media that the Union

Law Minister had received several complaints in this regard

and had also written to the Honble Chief Justice of the High

Court of Delhi wherein he has mentioned that there were

allegations that kin of the sitting judges of the Delhi High Court

have been favoured in the said exam. Now the said letter is also

in public domain. The Petitioner is, therefore, also praying for

constitution of an independent Judicial Service Commission

for conducting examinations for selection of lower judicial

officers.

1A. That the petitioner CPIL is a registered society (No.S-14654). It

is a non-profit body. The petitioner society is a public interest

organization which has been in the vanguard of the campaign

for public probity in public life and integrity in institution. Over

the years, it has earned a reputation and credibility for its

initiatives in public interest litigation. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,

General Secretary of the organization, is authorized to file this

petition. The requisite certificate & authority letter are filed

along with vakalatnama. Its founder President was Late Shri

V.M. Tarkunde and its Executive Committee consists of several

senior Advocates including Shri F.S. Nariman, Shri Shanti

Bhushan, Shri Anil Divan, Shri Collin Gonsalves and others.

The Petitioner has earlier filed several important public interest

petitions including one challenging the allotment of oil and gas

dealership through the discretionary quota of the Minister as

well as through the Oil Selection Board. The Petitioner had

also challenged the transfer of developed oil fields of Panna &

Mukta from ONGC to Reliance and Enron. The Petitioner has

also successfully challenged the Governments decision to

disinvest and privatise the Government Oil Companies without

seeking Parliamentary approval. The Petitioner had also filed a

Petition seeking comprehensive administrative guidelines for

securing the citizens right to information. The Petitioner also

filed several other petitions on important issues of public

interest like on the health hazards of consumption of Soft

Drinks due to the chemical additives present in them.

Recently, the Petitioner has successfully filed PILs raising the

issue of coal scam and scam in allotment of 2 G spectrum in

which Court monitored CBI investigation was directed by this

Honble Court. It also successfully challenged the illegal

appointment of Mr. P. J. Thomas as the Central Vigilance

Commissioner.

The Petitioner has no personal interest, or private/oblique

motive in filling the instant petition. There is no civil, criminal,

revenue or any litigation involving the petitioner which has or

could have a legal nexus with the issues involved in the PIL. It

is in public interest that the selection of the judicial officers is

done in fair and transparent manner.

The petitioner society has not made any representation to the

Honble High Court since the students as well as the present

counsel, on behalf of the students, had already approached the

Honble High Court through their separate representations

(Annexure P 5 & 6). Despite the said representations and also

the letter by the Union Law Minister, the Honble High Court is

going ahead with already declared results and has announced

the date of interview for 06.08.2015.

2. That most of the documents annexed with the present writ

petition are in public domain and some of them have been

obtained under the RTI Act.

Brief facts of the case:

3. On 18.02.2014, after a gap of three years, an advertisement was

issued for recruitment to 80 vacancies of Delhi Judicial Service

(DJS). Out of 80 vacancies, 55 were for the General Category

candidates. The exam was to be held in three parts, the

preliminary examination, the main examination and the

interview. Copy of the advertisement dated 18.02.2014 is being

annexed hereto as Annexure P1 (from page nos. _____to _____).

4. The preliminary examination was conducted on 01.06.2014. A

total 9033 students took the preliminary examination.

5. Total 659 out of 9033 candidates who successfully cleared the

preliminary examination appeared for the Main examination

which was held on 10th and 11th October, 2014. As per the

advertisement, a candidate was required to get 50% marks in

aggregate and 40% in each subject in the Main Examination to

be selected for the interview.

6. The result of the Main Examination was announced after almost

8 months on 01.05.2015 wherein only 15 students (13 from

General Category and 2 from reserved category) have been

selected for viva voice test for 80 vacancies. Thus, 98% of the

students were failed and only 2% were found suitable for final

round. It is submitted that normally three times the number of

seats notified are called for interview test. Apparently, in 2010,

120 candidates were called for interview for 27 seats of DJS and

in 2011, 75 candidates were selected for 23 seats. Copy of the

result of Main examination of DJS 2014 is being annexed hereto

as Annexure P2 (from page nos. _____to _____).

7. It would be pertinent hereto mention that at least 68 candidates,

who appeared for the Main Exam but not selected for the

interview, are those who have already cleared judicial

examinations of other States like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal

Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan,

Orissa, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and most of them are sitting

judges in their respective states. Copy of the list of successful

candidates of the judicial services of other states with their

marks in the present Main Exam is being annexed hereto as

Annexure P3 (from page nos. _____to _____). Copies of the

merit lists of successful candidates of the judicial services of

other states are annexed hereto as Annexure P4 (from page

nos. _____to _____).

8. As per the information available to the Petitioner, at least 6

candidates, who have not been selected for the interview, are 1st

rank holders in the judicial exams of their respective states, and

at least 3 candidates are 2nd rank holders in their respective

judicial exams. Copy of the list of the candidates who are

toppers or second rank holders in their respective judicial

exams of other states is annexed hereto as Annexure P5 (from

page nos. _____to _____).

9. Further, the Petitioner has learnt, as per the representation by

the candidates, that at least three candidates, who have not

been found suitable for the interview test in DJS, 2014, have

cleared the judicial service exams of two different states. The

names of these three candidates with their respective states are

Shivdan Choudhary (cleared Gujarat and Rajasthan), Akanksha

Garg (cleared UP and Rajasthan), Nahid Sultana (cleared UP

and Jharkhand).

10. Apparently, at least 2 candidates, had been in judicial service

since 2011 in Haryana and at the time of the exam - had an

experience of 4 years each of sitting on the bench. They are

Neetika Bhardwaj and Mansi Dhiman, both of them from the

2011 batch of the Haryana Judicial Services.

11. It further appears from the representation of the candidates that

some of the candidates who have not been found fit for being

called for the interview are the toppers and gold medalists in

their respective law colleges. Several candidates are LL.M.

holders from reputed institutions ILI (Indian Law Institute,

Delhi) and NLS (National Law School, Bangalore) and several

candidates are NET (National Eligibly Test) qualified law

lecturers in esteemed law colleges like Delhi University Law

Faculty (DU).

12. On 11th May 2015, a representation signed by 15 candidates in

hard copy and 280 online signatures candidates was submitted

to Respondent No.1. Another representation dated 14.05.2015

was sent by the counsel on behalf of all the candidates seeking

re-evaluation of all the papers of the main examination of DJS,

2014 by persons of unquestioned fairness. Till today, there is

no reply to any of these representations and as per the

announcement dated 27.07.2015, the interviews are going to be

held on 06.08.2015 on the basis of already declared results.

Copy of the representation dated 11.05.2015 sent by the

students is being annexed hereto as Annexure P6 (from page

nos. _____to _____). Copy of the representation dated

14.05.2015 sent by the counsel is being annexed hereto as

Annexure P7.

14. On 28th May 2015, the Delhi High Court admitted in an RTI

reply that there is no set criteria in checking and that no

model answers were provided to the examiners. Copy of the

RTI reply dated 28.05.2015 is being annexed hereto as

Annexure P8 (from page nos. ______to ______).

15. Further, it was widely reported in the media that the Union Law

Minister has received several complaints in this regard and had

also written to the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court of

Delhi wherein he has mentioned that there were allegations that

kin of the sitting judges of the Delhi High Court have been

favoured in the said exam. As per the said letter, which is now

in public domain, Rank 1 and rank 3 are children of sitting High

Court judges. Copy of the letter dated 18.06.2015 the Union

Law Minister written to the Honble Chief Justice of the High

Court of Delhi is being annexed hereto as Annexure P9 (from

page nos. ______to ______). Copy of the Indian Express report

dated 26 June 2015 is being annexed hereto as Annexure P10

(from page nos. _____to ______). Copy of the Economic Times

report dated 26 June 2015 is being annexed hereto as

Annexure P11 (from page nos. _____to ______). Copy of the

Indian Express report dated 30 June 2015 is being annexed

hereto as Annexure P12 (from page nos. _____to ______). Copy

of the Indian Express report dated 06 July 2015 is being

annexed hereto as Annexure P13 (from page nos. _____to

______).

16. The Honble High Court of Delhi announced the interview dates

for 06.08.2016. Copy of the Notice dated 27.07.2015 issued by

the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi announcing the

date for holding the interviews on 06.08.2015 is being annexed

hereto as Annexure P14 (from page nos. _____to _____).

17. Therefore, the Petitioner is filing the present writ petition

seeking quashing the result of Main Exam of DJS 2014 and also

asking for re-evaluation of all the papers of the students. The

Petitioner has not filed any other petition raising the issue

raised in the present writ petition in any other court of this

country.

17. The present writ petition is being filed on the following grounds

amongst others:

GROUNDS

A. Because the evaluation method appears to be so

unreasonable and irrational that 98% candidates which

apparently includes toppers/gold medalist of their respective

law schools and other States judicial service exams could not

clear the Main Examination. Those candidates who have

already proved his ability and merit by performing

exceptionally well in their respective colleges and also by

getting selected in other judicial service exams could not be

found suitable for even the interview test. Hence, the

selection process or evaluation method adopted for DJS

appears to be totally unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary,

hence, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

B. Because the results of the Main Exam of DJS, 2014 show

that there is a serious problem with the evaluation method of

the exam, which is being conducted for selecting the judicial

officers in Delhi by the High Court, and unless this evaluation

method or selection process for DJS is re-examined to make

it more rational and reasonable, without compromising on

merits, one of the most important factors responsible for

huge pendency or delay in justice i.e. lack of sufficient

number of judicial officers will not be tackled.

C. Because this kind of selection process will further demotivate

several other meritorious students of good law schools from

choosing judicial services as their career option. The

students with good academic records would never appear in

the exams having such unreasonable selection method and

especially when they are not taking place at regular intervals.

D. Because, as per the RTI reply, no set criteria in checking or

model answers were provided to the examiners. When there

are no uniform criteria for checking, there is possibility that

the selection is done on the basis of non-standardized and

non-uniform understanding of each and every examiner.

E. Because as per the media reports the Union Law Minister has

also written to the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court of

Delhi wherein he has mentioned that there were allegations

that kin of the sitting judges of the Delhi High Court have

been favoured in the said exam. As per the said letter, which

is now in public domain, Rank 1 and rank 3 are children of

sitting High Court judges and rank 9.

F. Because this Honble Court in the case of Sanchit Bansal v.

Joint Admission Board, (2012) 1 SCC 157 has clearly

observed that the courts can interfere in the examination

process if the procedure adopted is arbitrary.

G. Because the aforesaid selection process also illustrates the

need of adopting uniform selection procedures for appointing

judicial officers through an independent Judicial Service

Commission. In some of the states like Bihar, UP,

Uttarakhand, Odisha, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand,

Haryana, Punjab the entire selection of lower judicial officers

is done through their respective public service commissions.

However, in the States like Delhi, Rajasthan, MP, Gujarat,

their respective High Courts themselves conduct

examinations and do final selections. In a selection system

where the High Court itself conducts the examinations for

selection of the judicial officers, the possibility of conflict of

interest or even allegation of bias cannot be ruled out. In

order to eliminate all likelihoods of conflict of interest or

allegation of bias, there must be a uniform transparent

system of examination for selection of judicial officers

through an independent Judicial Service Commission.

PRAYERS

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this

Honble Court may be pleased to pass the following orders:

(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to

quash the result of the Main Exam of the Delhi Judicial

Service, 2014 declared on 01.05.2015;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to

get the re-evaluation done of all the papers of the Main Exam

of all the students who appeared in the said examination by

an independent expert committee preferably headed by a

retired judge of the High Court;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction for

the constitution of an independent Judicial Service

Commission for selection of the lower judicial officers; and

(d) Pass any other order as this Honble court may deem fit and

proper.

Petitioners Through

New Delhi

Dated (Prashant Bhushan)

Counsel for the Petitioners

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



IN THE MATTER OF:

Centre for Public Interest Litigation Petitioner

versus



AN APPLICATION FOR STAY/INTERIM DIRECTION ON BEHALF

OF THE PETITIONER

To,



1. That the present writ petition under Article 32 is being filed in

public interest. The Petitioner is challenging the entire selection

process and evaluation method adopted in the Main exam in the

DJS 2014 on the grounds of being unreasonable, arbitrary and


2. That the facts of the writ petition are not being mentioned here

for the sake of brevity and the same may be considered part of

the present Application.

3. That on 11th May 2015, a representation by some of the

candidates was submitted to Respondent No.1. Another

representation dated 14.05.2015 was sent by the counsel on

behalf of all the candidates seeking re-evaluation of all the

papers of the main examination of DJS, 2014 by persons of

unquestioned fairness. Till today, there is no reply to any of

these representations and as per the announcement dated

27.07.2015, the interviews are going to be held on 06.08.2015

on the basis of already declared results. If the selection process

of the DJS, 2014 is not stayed during the pendency of the

present writ petition, it would cause irreparable damage to the

un-successful candidates and the present petition would

become infructuous.

PRAYERS

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, during the

pendency of the present writ petition, this Honble may be pleased

to:

(a) Stay the interview/viva-voce test which is going to be held on

06.08.2015 for the Delhi Judicial Services, 2014, as announced

vide Notice dated 27.07.2015 by the Respondent;

(b) Get the re-evaluation done of all the papers of the Main Exam

of all the students who appeared in the said examination by an

independent expert committee preferably headed by a retired

judge of the High Court and

(c) Pass any other order as this Honble Court may deem fit and

proper.

Petitioners

Through

New Delhi



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL WRIT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. ___________OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION .PETITIONER

Versus

REGISTRAR GENERAL, THE HIGH

COURT OF DELHI RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Kamini Jaiswal D/o Shri R S Jaiswal, General Secretary of the

petitioner society, r/o E-77, 1st Floor, Saket, New Delhi -110017, do

hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:

1. That I am the General Secretary of the Petitioner Society in the

abovementioned Writ Petition and being familiar with the facts

and circumstances of the case, I am competent and authorised

to swear this Affidavit.

2. That I have read and understood the accompanying Synopsis

and List of dates (from page nos. _____to ______), writ petition

(from page nos. ______to ______), application for interim

direction (from page nos. ______to _______) and application for

exemption from filing officially translated copies of annexure

and I state that the facts mentioned therein are believed to be

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that nothing

material has been concealed therefrom. The annexures of the

writ petition are true copies/translations of their respective

originals.

3. The sources of the information contained in the present petition

are notifications, advertisement issued for DJS, 2014, the

results of different exams, representation dated 11.05.2015

sent by the candidates, information obtained under the Right to

Information Act, newspaper reports and the letter dated

18.06.2015 which is in public domain.

4. That this petition is only motivated by public interest. I affirm

that I have no personal interest in this matter.

5. That I have done whatsoever enquiry that was possible and I

state that no relevant facts in my knowledge have been

withheld.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of

the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, that no part

of it is false and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this day of ________2015.

DEPONENT

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



IN THE MATTER OF:

Centre for Public Interest Litigation Petitioner

versus



AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIALLY

TRANSALTED COPY OF ANNEXURES

To,



1. That the present writ petition under Article 32 is being filed in

public interest. The Petitioner is challenging the entire selection

process and evaluation method adopted in the Main exam in the

DJS 2014 on the grounds of being unreasonable, arbitrary and


4. That the facts of the writ petition are not being mentioned here

for the sake of brevity and the same may be considered part of

the present Application.

5. That some of the annexures are in Hindi and the same have

been translated into English by a person who is well conversant

in both the languages. The Petitioner could not get the

translation done through an official translator due to paucity of

time.

PRAYERS

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances this Honble

may be pleased to:

(d) Exempt the Petitioner from filing officially translated copies of

annexure; and

(e) Pass any other order as this Honble Court may deem fit and

proper.

Petitioners

Through

New Delhi



djs exam petition

Documents