Case Note & Summary
The case involved two writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Hemani Malhotra and Vineeta Goyal against the High Court of Delhi. The petitions sought a writ of mandamus to amend a notice issued by the Registrar (Vig.) of the High Court, which declared only three candidates selected for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, excluding the petitioners. The controversy arose from the High Court's advertisement for recruitment, which outlined a two-stage selection process consisting of a written examination and a viva-voce test. The petitioners appeared for the written examination on March 12, 2006, but the results were not declared, and they were subsequently called for interviews that were repeatedly postponed. Eventually, the viva-voce test was conducted on February 27, 2007, after which the petitioners were informed that they had not been selected due to the introduction of minimum qualifying marks for the viva-voce test, which had not been stipulated at the beginning of the selection process. The petitioners contended that this change was illegal and contrary to the principles established in previous Supreme Court judgments. The High Court's response indicated that the petitioners did not meet the minimum marks required for the viva-voce test. The Supreme Court analyzed the legality of introducing minimum marks after the selection process had begun, referencing the K. Manjusree case, which established that such changes were impermissible. The Court concluded that the petitioners should have been included in the merit list based on their combined scores from the written examination and viva-voce test. Consequently, the Court directed the High Court to amend the selection notice and include the petitioners as selected candidates, clarifying that their seniority and salary would be determined from the date of their appointment. The petitions were accepted in part, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Amendment of Selection Notice - Constitution of India, Article 32 - Petitioners sought to amend the notice declaring selected candidates for Delhi Higher Judicial Service, arguing that the introduction of minimum qualifying marks for viva-voce after the selection process commenced was illegal. The Court held that such a change was impermissible and directed the respondent to prepare a combined merit list including the petitioners (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the introduction of minimum qualifying marks for the viva-voce test after the selection process commenced was valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed the High Court to amend the notice dated April 10, 2007, to include the petitioners as selected candidates for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The Court held that the introduction of minimum qualifying marks for the viva-voce test after the selection process commenced was illegal. The petitioners were to be considered based on their combined scores from the written examination and viva-voce test, but their seniority and salary would be determined from the date of their appointment.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus
- Article 32
- Minimum Qualifying Marks
- Selection Process
- Combined Merit List
