Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2014: SC accepts Justice Reddy’s interim report, 12 more candidates eligible for interview
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court today accepted the interim report filed by retired judge, Justice P.V. Reddy, laying to rest the uncertainty that had surrounded the Delhi Judicial Service Exam, 2014 for a long time now.
The bench, comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh today noted that the marks of several candidates had been increased, as a consequence of which, 12 of these candidates were eligible for the interview. The Delhi High Court was then directed to conduct the interview within a period of four weeks. The Apex Court ordered that the interview be conducted by the same bench which had conducted the interview of the 15 candidates originally selected.
During the hearing, it was also submitted that the OMR sheets in the Delhi Judicial Services Examination be directed to be filled in pen and not pencil. Responding to this submission, Justice Shiva Kirti Singh observed that the High Court should implement this suggestion even without an order of the Court, in the interest of fairness.
Further, it was urged that the Justice Reddy report be made public on the High Court website. However, Justice Misra insisted that this suggestion he considered in the next hearing. The matter has now been listed for hearing on April 25, 2016.
The question of irregularity in the results of the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2014 had come to light through a letter written by Law Minister Sadananda Gowda to Delhi HC Chief Justice G. Rohini last year in June, wherein the latter had been urged to look into the “corruption, favoritism and nepotism” in the examination. He had stated that, “the Department of Justice has received many grievances alleging corruption, favouritism and nepotism in the recently concluded Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2014.” You may read the LiveLaw article here.
Soon after, Advocate Prashant Bhushan had also written to Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice G. Rohini, bringing to her notice the apparent irrationality in the results. In the letter, Mr. Bhushan claimed to have been approached by several students/ candidates, “with the facts and documents which show very startling information/data regarding the said result and also raise serious questions about the evaluation method/selection process being adopted for selecting the lower judicial officers in Delhi.” You may read the LiveLaw article here.
Following this, Centre for Public Interest Litigation had petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method adopted in Main (Written) Examination, on the grounds of it being unreasonable, arbitrary and hence, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. You may read the LiveLaw article here.
The Supreme Court had, in August last year, restrained the Delhi High Court from declaring final results of the exam till its further orders. But the court had allowed interviews and the other processes to go on. Later in December, it appointed former Supreme Court judge, Justice P. V. Reddy to revalue 659 answer sheets of examination. You may read the LiveLaw article here.