Writ petition challenging restrictions in Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules regarding candidate cutoff, diversion of reserved seats, and addition of vacancies. Dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.03.2025
Through: Mr. Amarjeet Singh Chandiok, Sr. Adv with Mr. Rakesh Mittal and Mr. Ajay Harsh, Advs.
versus
DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL .....Respondent Through: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 12902/2025 (exemption)
W.P.(C) 2721/2025, CM APPL. 12901/2025
“a. Quash the Notification No. F.6/50/2019Judl.Supllaw/2461-2465 dated 26.12.2019 passed by Government of NCT of Delhi being unconstitutional and ultra vires to the extent of insertion of clause IV in appendix attached to rule 7C Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970 imposing unreasonable restriction of number of candidates to be admitted to the
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2721/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:16:19
Main (Written) Examination to be not more than twenty times the total number of advertised vacancies in each category, in addition to the precondition of minimum qualifying marks;
b. Divert 6 reserved seats of ST category advertised third time in DHJS 2024, to the General Category in case suitable candidates are not found after conducting the mains exam and in the meantime allow the applicant to appear for DHJS mains written examination on adhoc basis;
c. Direct the respondent to advertise the 2 vacancies which fell vacant on 19.02.2025 upon promotion of 2 Hon’ble Judges in Delhi High Court, to be filled under the existing DHJS examination 2024.”
| Category | _Break up _ | of Vacancies | Total No. of |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existing | Anticipated vacancies (till 01.12.2025) |
Vacancies | |
| General | 03 | 02 | 05 |
| SC | 05 | 00 | 05 |
| ST | 06 | 00 | 06 |
| TOTAL | 14 | 02 | 16 |
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2721/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:16:19
Judicial Services Rules, 1970 as amended by the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (Amendment) Rules, 2019, the respondent declared 102 candidates as shortlisted in the preliminary examination against the 05 vacancies for the General category. For the 05 vacancies in the Scheduled Caste category, 25 candidates have been shortlisted, while for the 06 vacancies in the Scheduled Tribe category, 06 candidates have been shortlisted for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Main Examination (Written), 2024. Two candidates under the persons with disabilities category under the General category have been shortlisted. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of Clause I(i) of the Appendix attached to Rule 7C, the Preliminary Examination is only for selection for the main examination and is a screening test of qualifying in nature. Clause III of the Appendix further states that the minimum qualifying marks for the Preliminary Examination for a General category candidate shall be 50%, while for the reserved category candidate it shall be 45%. He submits that, therefore, any candidate who secures more than these marks should be declared to be qualified to appear for the Main (written) Examination. He submits that an artificial cut-off is thereafter prescribed in Clause IV, which states that no more than 20 times the total number of advertised vacancies in each category shall be shortlisted for the Main (written) Examination. He submits that this condition is arbitrary in nature and is liable to be struck down.
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2721/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:16:19
that as far as the 06 seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category are concerned, they could not be filled even in the DHJS examination for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024. He submits that there is a high likelihood that these vacancies will remain unfilled even in the present process. He, therefore, prays that the respondent should divert these six reserved seats from the Scheduled Tribe category to the General category for the present examination.
“APPENDIX
(See Rule 7C)
l. Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination will be held in three successive stages: .
(i) DHJS Preliminary Examination (Objective type with 25% negative marking}for selection for the main examination which shall be a screening test of qualifying nature, and
(ii) DHJS Main Examination (Written} for selection of candidates for calling for vivavoce.
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2721/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:16:19
(iii) Viva-voce.
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
II. The Preliminary Examination will be a screening test of qualifying nature and will consist of one paper of multiple choice based objective type questions carrying a maximum of 150 marks. There shall be 150 questions with each question carrying one mark with 25% negative marking for each wrong answer.
Ill. Minimum qualifying marks for Preliminary Examination:
| Category | Minimum Qualifying Marks in % |
|
|---|---|---|
| General | 50% | |
| Reserved | 45% | |
| Categories | i.e. | |
| SC, ST |
and | |
| Persons | with | |
| Disability |
IV. The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main (Written) Examination shall not be more than twenty times the total number of advertised vacancies in each category.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2721/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:16:19
curtailed. In any case, it is for the employer to determine the mode and manner of selection and unless it is shown that the same violates any statutory provision or is otherwise arbitrary, interference in the same is not warranted. In the present case, apart from contending that a larger pool of candidates should have been made to sit in the Main (written) examination, it has not been shown by the petitioner how the impugned stipulation is arbitrary.
Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2721/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:16:19
the respondent to decide whether the number of vacancies is to be increased in the middle of a selection process. The petitioner cannot claim a right over these vacancies and thereby seek a mandamus directing the respondent to increase the number of vacancies in the ongoing process.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
MARCH 4, 2025 /ss/sk/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2721/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:16:19
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the cap of twenty times the advertised vacancies for admission to the Main Examination under Rule 7C is arbitrary and liable to be quashed.
Whether reserved seats in the Scheduled Tribe category can be diverted to the General category if they remain unfilled after the selection process.
Whether additional vacancies falling vacant after the commencement of the selection process can be directly inserted into the ongoing examination.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Yamini Mittal
Delhi High Court Through Its Registrar General
Navin Chawla
Shalinder Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
