Delhi High Court upholds Supreme Court admin's discretion to set cut-off for court assistant typing test

The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld the administrative discretion of the Supreme Court in imposing a cut-off on marks obtained in the typing test for the post of Junior Court Assistant (JCA) [Pramit Basu v Secretary General Supreme Court of India].

Justice Prateek Jalan rejected the argument that the cut-off amounts to changing the rules of the game midway because the condition was not published in the advertisement inviting applications. 

“Shortlisting was being conducted, in the present case, at an intermediate stage of the recruitment, on the basis of a multiple of the number of vacancies. The marking scheme for Typing Test was known to candidates all along; they were well aware that they would be assessed on the basis of speed and accuracy. There was no change in these parameters of assessment. Consequently, the case does not raise any question of being taken by surprise, because the very same marking scheme was adopted,” the Court ruled. 

Justice Jalan referred to the Constitution Bench judgement of Tej Prakash Pathak and held that benchmarks may be introduced midway during the recruitment if rules/advertisements permit provided the decision is not arbitrary. 

“The objectives of a selection process have been identified [by the Supreme Court] as selection of the most suitable person, based on impartial and objective merit-based selection, avoiding patronage and favouritism. There is no allegation in the present case, that these fundamental attributes have been breached. The balance struck by the Constitution Bench must, therefore, be observed, to the fullest extent possible,” it said. 

Therefore, the Court rejected a batch of petitions filed by several candidates challenging the shortlisting cut-off for the top court’s Junior Court Assistant recruitment process. 

The petitioners had cleared Typing Speed Test stage but were excluded from the next stage (Descriptive Test) because their scores were below 43.18, the benchmark set after the test.

It was argued by the petitioners that this benchmark was not in the original advertisement, constituting a change in rules midway and violating principles of fair selection. 

However, the Supreme Court argued that the benchmark was applied at multiple stages, with the authority reserved in clause 18. 

It also contended that the decision was non-arbitrary and the benchmark was applied uniformly and was justified by the large candidate pool - over 134,000 applicants for 241 vacancies. 

After considering the case, the High Court found the decision to be non-arbitrary and rejected the challenge. 

Advocates Amit George, Arkaneil Bhaumik, Shivalika Rudrabatla, Kartikay Puneesh, Dushyant Kaul, Rupam Jha, Medhavi Bhaila, Shubham Prajapati, Rakesh Kumar Mandal, Akash Kumar, Phillip Massey, Mahipal Singh, Shrishti, Aditya Raj Marandi and Muskan Dulet appeared for the petitioners. 

The Supreme Court Secretary General was represented through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Pratima N Lakra and advocates Amit Gupta, Chandan Prajapati, RV Prabhat, Vinay Yadav, Vikram Aditya, Shubham Sharma, Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Naman. 

[Read Judgment]