- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
A petition has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the result of the Delhi Judicial Service (Preliminary Examination), 2019, which was declared on September 26, 2019.
In the alternative, the petition seeks a direction to the High Court to re-evaluate and re-draw the Prelims Result.
The matter was mentioned before a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and C Hari Shankar for urgent listing today. The Bench then proceeded to allow the matter to be listed before an appropriate Bench on September 30.
The petitioner, Nishant Basoya, holds an LLB degree from the University of Delhi and is an aspirant of Judicial Services.
He had, therefore, applied for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2019 which was notified on July 31, 2019. The examination was for filling up 75 vacancies including backlog, fresh and anticipated, in Delhi Judicial Services.
The Examination was held by the High Court on September 22, 2019.
As per the Result, the High Court declared the cut-off marks for qualifying the examination as 120.50.
Since the Petitioner secured only 119.25 marks, he could not qualify so as to be eligible to give the Mains Examination.
It is the petitioner’s grievance that the Result which was declared on September 26 has several incorrect answers which are either in contradiction with the legal provisions on the relevant subject or the principle of law settled by the Supreme Court of India in landmark cases.
These questions are Question No. 171, Question No. 6 and Question No. 163 of the Question Booklet Series- C and pertain to Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC, Contract for sale of a car and a compromise decree, respectively.
The Petitioner has further expressed his “surprise and in utter shock” at the fact that High Court did not even invite objections to the Result and proceeded to schedule the Mains Examination on October 12-13, 2019 after declaring the cut-off.
“..the impugned result neither disclosed the authority and/or legal provision nor provided any explanation to any of the answers as mentioned in the impugned result..”, it is alleged.
The petitioner has thus contended that act of the High Court was palpably arbitrary and opaque and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above, the petitioner has thus sought a direction to set-aside/quash the Result dated September 26, or in the alternative, to re-evaluate and re-draw it.
The petitioner is being represented by Advocates Nivesh Sharma and Sagar Shivam from Prudens Globus Legal Solution.