AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sl. No.,Category of Post & Pay Level,"Minimum Qualifications prescribed
for appointment to the Posts",Mode of Appointment
25 & 26,"J u n i o r Judicial
Assistant/Restorer Pay level-5
of 7th Pay Commission)","a. XXXX XXXX
b. For departmental examination
â€" By promotion from members of
the Establishment of the High
Court: Matriculation or equivalent
with knowledge of English; having
five years’ service in any of the
category 27 (Chauffeur), 28
[Despatch Van Driver (Rider)], 29
(Despatch Rider), 30 (Despatch
Rider-cumProcess Server), 31
(Photocopy Machine Operator
Grade-I), 32 (Library Attendant) 33
(Usher), 34 (Photocopy Machine
Operator GradeII), 35 (Court
Attendant), 36 [Court Attendant (L)
37 [Court Attendant (S)], 38 [Room
Attendant (H)], and 39 (Security
Attendant).","a. XXXX
b . 30% of the vacant
posts by promotion from
the posts mentioned in
Column No. 3 on the
basis of written test,
Typing test in English
with speed of not less
than 25 words per
minute and interview,
subject to their work and
conduct report.
,
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, counsel for the Petitioners, contends that there is an acute shortage of JJA/Restorer in this Court. He submits that a",,,
recruitment process which started on 3rd February, 2020, for filling up the direct recruitment posts of 132 JJA/Restorer has not been completed and",,,
even the written examination has not been conducted till date. He submits that since there are vacant posts of JJA/Restorer, the Petitioners can be",,,
appointed against such posts. The condition in the impugned circular, which was introduced for the first time, should not be insisted upon. He further",,,
submits that the number of posts advertised under the impugned circular were 38, to which a total of 137 candidates filled the application form, and",,,
only 114 appeared in the written examination. Amongst those, only 34 candidates qualified the written test. Thus, presuming all the candidates qualify",,,
Stage-II (English Typing Test) as well as Stage-III (Interview), even then 04 posts will still remain vacant. Since the Petitioners have obtained more",,,
that 40% qualify marks in total, they can be appointed against the said 4 vacant posts. He further submits that no prejudice will be caused to any",,,
candidate in case the Petitioners are allowed to appear in Stage-II of the Written Examination. It is further submitted that the condition of passing,,,
Part-A or Part-B of the examination independently and separately defeats the objective of encouraging and making more appointments from,,,
Departmental candidates. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioners also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Syed Mehedi",,,
v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9015, to contend that since there are vacancies, the Respondent can give a relaxation in the",,,
qualifying marks.,,,
He also submitted that prior to the declaration of the result, a few similarly situated candidates, who had obtained 40% qualifying marks in the",,,
written examination in aggregate, made a representation to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, seeking inter alia a direction to allow the",,,
candidates to appear in Stage-II (English Typing Test), i.e. without insisting upon the condition that the candidate must obtain 20 marks in each part of",,,
the written examination.,,,
We have perused the record and considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. In our view, the present petition is",,,
completely devoid of merit. The cut off marks in each subject prescribed under the impugned circular are being applied uniformly to all the candidates,,,
and therefore there is nothing irregular in this exercise. The cut off marks are fixed by the Examining Body, keeping in view the relevancy of the",,,
subject, to shortlist suitable candidates for the service. The Examining Body is well within its rights to adjudge the quality/capacity of the candidates",,,
and for this purpose they can prescribe the cut off / minimum marks so that only such candidates are selected, who are suitable and fulfil the standard",,,
required for discharge of the duties for the said post. The written examination tests the knowledge of the candidates which is essential for the post,,,
applied for. Significantly, the selection criteria was adopted and declared at the time of commencement of the recruitment process. The Petitioners,",,,
after having participated in the selection process, cannot insist upon changing the selection criteria after failing to qualify as per the criteria laid down.",,,
In our view, since the mode of selection has been prescribed, it has to be adhered to strictly, and there is no provision shown to us to relax the",,,
eligibility criteria. Merely because there are vacancies, would not entitle the Petitioners to seek a relaxation in the eligibility criteria/qualifying marks.",,,
Since the Petitioners have failed to secure the qualifying marks in the written examination, we are not persuaded to give any directions as sought",,,
for in the present petition. There is no merit in the petition, accordingly the same is dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of.",,,
We may however note that during the course of the arguments, it has been stated that the Petitioners have made a representation to the",,,
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court. Needless to say, they shall free to pursue the same, if they so desire.",,,