SALIL MAHESHWARI Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that he has not found place in the revised list of candidates eligible to take the main examination for the Delhi Judicial Service in respect of which the preliminary examination was held in 2011. The petitioner sat for the said examination. The result was declared on 23.12.2011. The petitioner had obtained 119.25 marks. Because the marks of the last qualified candidate were 123.5, the petitioner did not qualify for participating in the main examination. After the result had been declared on 23.12.2011, several writ petitions had been filed before this Court calling into question the question paper for the said preliminary examination. Those writ petitions were disposed of by a judgment in Gunjan Sinha Jain v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi WP(C) 449/2012 and other connected matters on 09.04.2012. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:-

(2.) Consequent upon the re-evaluation done by the respondents in terms of the directions given by us in the said judgment dated 09.04.2012, another list has been prepared which was declared on 21.04.2012. The petitioner herein does not fall within the top 230 candidates, as indicated in subparagraph (2) set-out in paragraph 81 of the said decision. In fact, the petitioner, on re-evaluation, got 118.5 marks. The list of top 230 candidates ended at 122.50. Apart from these 230 candidates, only those candidates, who were earlier declared as qualified but did not find a place in the top 230 candidates after the said re-evaluation, were also included in the list of persons qualified for appearing in the main examination.

(3.) There are some persons who had earlier been declared as qualified in the first round, whom we have not disturbed by way of the decision dated 09.04.2012, who may have got marks less than 122.50 on re-evaluation. The learned counsel for the petitioner is claiming parity with them. Unfortunately, we do not see as to how the petitioner can claim parity with those candidates inasmuch as the petitioner did not qualify in the first round or even in the second round. In any event, the petitioner does not fall within the top 230 candidates after re-evaluation and, therefore, we do not see as to how he can have a legitimate claim to appear in the main examination. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of C. Channabasavaih and Others v. State of Mysore and Others, 1965 AIR(SC) 1293, is clearly not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, we see no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.