recently, the the Supreme Court has issued a notice in response to an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court's decision, which had refused to intervene in the criteria for establishing the minimum qualifying marks in viva voce for the Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer (Group-C) position.

The division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, observed that allocating 25 out of 125 marks (equivalent to 20% weightage) for the interview process for the Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer position, conducted by three Registrars of the Court, was notable.

Further, the Court observed that specific minimum marks were set for the interview, and candidates were allotted an average of only five minutes for this process.

In view of the same, the Court was of the opinion that it will need to examine whether the aforesaid kind of conditions can be provided for in post of this nature.

Case Brief -

The applicants, seeking the position of Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer, challenged the outcome of the viva voce test for their appointment. The applicants did not meet the minimum qualifying marks required for the appointment based on their viva voce results. The petitioners in the Court argue that the criteria for establishing these minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test is unjust or unreasonable.

When the matter was first placed before the bench Delhi High Court, the Court noted that the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the category in which the petitioners had appeared was ‘11’ and the petitioners have secured marks less than ‘11’ and as such have been declared unsuccessful.

Furthermore, it was noted that the advertisement stipulated four stages that candidates had to successfully pass before being eligible for consideration for the post. Importantly, it is acknowledged that the petitioners successfully cleared all three of these stages. However, they encountered difficulties at the fourth stage because their scores fell below the specified minimum qualifying marks.

The Court during the proceedings observed that the irony of the situation is evident when considering that the petitioner would have otherwise been categorized as an OBC candidate with the highest marks, if not for the disqualification due to scoring 10 marks instead of the required minimum of 11 marks.

Taking into account these facts and circumstances, the Court issued an interim directive for the petitioner's appointment and instructed that all required formalities must be finalized within 15 days from the date of the order.

Notwithstanding the same, the Court clarified that the appointment will be made subject to the final judgment in the matter and listed the matter on November 07, 2023.

Case Title: AALMA v. Delhi High Court

Click here to Read/Download the Judgement