SURENDER PAL SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the process of selection of appointment to the post of the Additional District Judge under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India (hereafter as "Constitution"); the vacancies were part of the cadre of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service which is governed by the Rules framed under Article 235/309 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner had not initially impleaded any third party but subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent nos.3 to 7 (successful candidates, referred to as "contesting respondents" hereafter) were impleaded and arrayed as party respondents. In September, 2009, the Delhi High Court issued a notification for recruitment to vacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) in terms of Rules framed in that regard in 1970. The petitioner applied under the "scheduled caste" category (SC category) on 15.10.2009. He was allowed to appear in the examination, held on 13.12009. He claims that he fared well in the Part-I (objective) as well as Part-II (Descriptive) papers and was hopeful of being declared successful. On 13.01.2010, the High Court declared the result of Part-I examination. The petitioner complains that the list of successful candidates contained those who were shortlisted on the basis of performance in Part-I for evaluation of their answer sheets in Part-II, though they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. It is alleged that some candidates were in permanent employment of the Union or of the States and ceased to be the Advocates in terms of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 ("BCI Rules" hereafter) and were ineligible for consideration and in the case of others, the basic eligibility to claim benefits of SC/ST did not exist. The petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra & Anr v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, (2009) 15 SCC 458, which had stated that SC/ST benefits could not be given to the category of SC/ST applicants, who did not belong to the particular State or Union Territory on account of their not fulfilling the residential criteria. The petitioner thus complains that the inclusion of some candidates in the SC/ST category - notable of the fifth respondent, as well as inclusion of those whose candidature was impermissible under Rule 49 of the BCI Rules, vitiated their selection. He therefore, sought for appropriate directions to quash the selection and consequent appointment.

(3.) The petitioner - as stated earlier, had initially not even impleaded any party other than the official respondents. However, during the pendency of the proceedings and having regard to the result of the examinations which culminated in the appointment of the candidates whose eligibility was questioned, the contesting respondents were allowed to be impleaded. Their appointments were made expressly subject to the outcome of the proceedings.