SANJEET SINGH Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON grievance is raised by all these petitioners which arises out of the selection process undertaken by Delhi High Court for appointment to the Delhi Judicial Services (DJS) which was initiated with advertisement dated 26th October, 2009 and concluded with appointments made pursuant to the said selection procedure vide Notification dated 24.12.2010. There is no grievance about the selection process undertaken by the High Court or in respect of the persons qualified on the basis of marks secured in the written examination as well as interviews/viva-voce test. The grievance is all together different. Vide advertisement dated 26th October, 2009 vacancies of 60 seats for recruitment to DJS was notified. The petitioners asserted that they received the information under the Right to Information Act (RTI) that total vacancies existing at that time were numbering 113. According to these petitioners, all the vacancies should have been notified for recruitment and the action on the part of the Delhi High Court in undertaking the process of recruitment to 60 vacancies only was improper and contrary to the mandate of Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan Vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Commission & Ors, (2007) 2 SCALE 159.

(2.) BEFORE we take note of the detailed submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions on this issue and the defence/respond of the respondents thereto, we may briefly take note of the facts on which there is no controversy, whatsoever.

(3.) IN so far as these petitioners are concerned, they could not secure their ranking within first 27 candidates which number of posts were in general category and for this reasons, they were not offered the appointment. Ranking of these petitioners in the merit list is as under:-