AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This court by common judgment dated 18.07.2019 decided 33 writ petitions.
The applicants have filed three applications being D.B. Civil Misc. Applications No.234/2019 (Writ Petition No.10920/2019), 235/2019 (Writ Petition
No.10922/2019) and 236/2019 (Writ Petition No.10921/2019), for clarification/modification/correction pointing out a typographical error in the
operating part of the judgment dated 18.07.2019.
Though the applications have been filed in three writ petitions but considering that 33 writ petitions were decided by common judgment, the other writ
petitions were ordered to be listed in ‘to be mentioned’ category so as to pass a common order in all the matters. Copies of such applications
were provided by learned counsel for the applicants to learned counsel for the respondents and learned counsel for writ-petitioners in other cases.
Heard learned counsel for the writ-petitioners and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this Court while applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.4794/2012 - Pallav Mongia Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, directed the respondents to recompute the marks, after deleting one question,
so as to prepare fresh list of eligible candidates. In latter part of the direction, what was said was that all such candidates, who secure more marks
than the last candidate originally permitted to appear in the main examination, should be allowed to appear in the main examination.
Citing from the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 28.05.2012 in Pallav Mongia Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, supra, it was argued that
in fact the Supreme Court directed that “any candidate whether he has approached the court or not, who has secured equal or higher marks than
the last candidate who has been permitted to take mains examination, be permitted to participate in the mains examination.†(underlying ours).
The word “equal†has been omitted from the aforequoted direction of this Court. According to judgment of the Supreme Court, all candidates,
who secure “equal or more marks†than the last candidate originally allowed to appear, should have been permitted to take the mains examination.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the High Court, submitted that the requirement of minimum qualifying marks for appearing in the mains
examination, even on reduced number of questions, as indicated in para 79 of the judgment dated 09.04.2012 of Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court in Gunjan Sinha Jain Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, W.P. (C) No.449/2012, was kept intact by the Supreme Court in Pallav
Mongia Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, supra, therefore, only such candidates, who secured minimum marks as per the prescription in
Clause (7) of the advertisement dated 15.11.2018, should be permitted to take part in the mains examination.
Operating part of the judgment dated 18.07.2019 reads as under:-
“In view of the discussion made above, present writ petitions deserve to partly succeed, only to the extent of Question A/66, B/62, C/55, D/66, with
direction to the respondents to delete that question from the questionpaper booklet and keeping in view the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in
Pallav Mongia Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, supra, recompute the marks so as to prepare fresh list of eligible candidates, by including all
such candidates therein, who secure more marks than the last candidate originally allowed to appear in the main examination and apart from originally
allowed candidates, also permit the candidates newly included in the eligibility list, to appear in the main examination, for recruitment to Civil Judge
Cadre. Ordered accordingly.â€
Obviously, though this Court intended to apply the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pallav Mongia, supra, but the word “equal†in the
afore-extracted para was omitted to be mentioned due to bona-fide error and therefore the order needs to be corrected for this inadvertent mistake.
In view of the above, the operative part of the aforesaid judgment is modified and shall now stand substituted in the following terms:-
“In view of the discussion made above, present writ petitions deserve to partly succeed, only to the extent of Question A/66, B/62, C/55, D/66, with
direction to the respondents to delete that question from the questionpaper booklet and keeping in view the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in
Pallav Mongia Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, supra, recompute the marks so as to prepare fresh list of eligible candidates, by including all
such candidates therein, who secure equal or more marks than the last candidate, in respective categories, originally allowed to appear in the main
examination and apart from originally allowed candidates, also permit the candidates newly included in the eligibility list, to appear in the main
examination, for recruitment to Civil Judge Cadre, subject to their securing minimum qualifying marks, on reduced number of questions, as per
stipulation in Clause (7) of the advertisement dated 15.11.2018 or as per the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Ordered accordingly.
The applications accordingly stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in all the connected files.