Guidelines issued for evaluating the DJS Examination to restore faith in the examination system

Supreme Court: Apart from agreeing with the suggestions accepted by the Registrar of Delhi High Court, the bench of Dipak Misra and R.F. Nariman, laid down certain guidelines to be followed while evaluating the Delhi Judicial Examination. The said guidelines are as follows:

  • In the Preliminary exams, the OMR sheets to be filled up in pen and not pencil.
  • In the Preliminary examination, the names of successful candidates be mentioned.
  • The candidates should be provided a copy of their answer scripts under the RTI and as per two Supreme Court judgments of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 and Kerala Public Service Commission Vs. State Information Commission, (2016) 3 SCC 417.
  • In checking of the mains papers, the procedure laid down in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, (2007) 3 SCC 720, Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. U.P.S.C., (2013) 12 SCC 489 and Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta, (2015) 11 SCC 395 shall be kept in view.

The Court said that the suggestions have been given so that the candidates, who participate in the examination must have intrinsic faith in the system of examination and simultaneously, they must also appreciate that a candidate, while appearing in an examination, has his/her own limitation. Faith in an institution and acceptance of individual limitation are the summum bonum of a progressive civilised society.

The Court was hearing the petition filed asserting certain aspects in awarding marks to the candidates who appeared in the preliminary and also main examinations for Delhi Judicial Services, 2014. The controversy arose when only 15 candidates were selected after facing the interviews when the total number of seats were 80. The Court, in it’s order dated 14.12.2015, had said that though it is well settled in law that if the suitable candidates are not found, the employer is not obliged to fill up the posts but this case should be treated as a special case and the grievance of the petitioners who had appeared in the main examination should be addressed. Justice P.V.Reddy, former Supreme Court judge, was hence appointed to reevaluate the answer scripts and submit a report. The High Court of Delhi called twelve candidates, as per the Report of Justice P. V. Reddy, for interview. Out of twelve candidates, eleven candidates participated in the interview and all of them were selected. [Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 758decided on 26.07.2016]


Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.