1

PRASHANT BHUSHAN
Advocate

DATED: 14.05.2015
To,
Justice G. Rohini
The Honble Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi
New Delhi

Subject: Apparent irrationality in the result of the Main Exam of the Delhi
Judicial Service, (DJS) 2014
Dear Chief Justice,
I have been approached by several students/candidates, who have been
declared unsuccessful in the result, declared on 1st May 2015, of the Main
Exam of DJS, 2014, 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.
Some of the facts which indicate that the selection process for the DJS, 2014
has not been fair or reasonable are as follows:
(i)

On 18.02.2014, after a gap of three years, an advertisement

was issued for recruitment to 80 vacancies of Delhi Judicial
Service (DJS). Out of 80 vacancies, 55 were for the General
Category candidates. The exam was to be held in three parts,

the preliminary examination, the main examination and the

interview.
(ii)

A total 9033 students took the preliminary examination held

on 01.07.2014 for total 80 vacancies, of which 55 were for the
General Category candidates;

(iii) 659 students out of 9033, who were declared successful in

preliminary examination, took the main examination held on
10th and 11th October, 2014;
(iv)

The result of this Main Examination was declared on 1st May

2015, almost 7 months after the exam was held. Surprisingly,
only 15 students (13 from General Category and 2 from
reserved category) have been selected for the interview for
total 80 vacancies in the result declared on 1st May 2015. Thus,
98% of the students who had cleared preliminary examination
have not been found suitable for the final interview test;

(v)

The ostensible explanation for selecting only 15 students, even

though normally three times the number of seats notified are
called for interview test, would be that no other candidate
could get 50% aggregate cut off marks or required 40% cut off
in all the papers.

(vi)

However, what is remarkable is that at least 65 candidates,

who appeared for the Main Exam but not selected for the
interview, are those who have already cleared judicial
examinations of other States like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal
Pradesh, Haryana, Jharkhand, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan
Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and most of them are
sitting judges in their respective states. Copies of the list of
successful candidates of the judicial services of other states

with their marks in the present Main Exam as well as their

respective merit lists of their states are annexed hereto as
Annexure A (Colly).
(vii) At least 6 candidates, who have not been selected for the
interview, are toppers/rank one holders in the judicial exams
of their respective states, and at least 4 candidates are second
rank holders in their respective judicial exams. Copy of the list
of the candidates who are toppers or second rank holders in
their respective judicial exams of other states is annexed
hereto as Annexure B.
(viii) At least three candidates, who have not been found suitable for
the interview test in DJS, 2014, have cleared the judicial service
exams of two different states. The names of these three
candidates with their respective states are Nahid Sultana
(Jharkhand and UP), Shivdan Choudhary (Gujarat and
Rajasthan) and Akansha Garg (UP and Rajasthan).
(ix)

Some of the candidates who have not been found fit for being
called for the interview are the toppers and gold medalists in
their respective law colleges.

This is really astonishing that out of 653 candidates, who successfully

cleared preliminary examination and included at least 65 judicial officers of
other states, only 15 candidates have been found suitable for the interview
test to be conducted for total 80 vacancies. The evaluation method appears
to be so unreasonable and irrational that 98% candidates, including
toppers and successful candidates of other States judicial service exams,
could not clear the Main Examination!

Such results show that there is a serious problem with the evaluation
method of the exam, which is being conducted for selecting the judicial
officers in Delhi, and unless this evaluation method or selection process for
DJS is re-examined to make it more rational and reasonable, without
compromising on merits, one of the most important factors responsible for
huge pendency or delay in justice i.e. lack of sufficient number of judicial
officers will not be tackled.
This kind of selection process will further demotivate several other
meritorious students of good law schools from choosing judicial services as
their career option. The students with good academic records would never
appear in the exams having such unreasonable selection method and
especially when they are not taking place at regular intervals.
It is, therefore, requested that the result of the Main (Exam) of DJS, 2014,
declared on 1st may 2015, should be put on abeyance and all the papers of
all the candidates who appeared for the said exam should be re-evaluated
by adopting fair and reasonable standards, by persons of unquestioned
fairness, so that meritorious and suitable candidates could be selected for
all the notified vacancies.
With regards,
Sincerely,

(Prashant Bhushan)
Copy to:
Honble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,
High Court of Delhi, New Delhi