Delhi High Court – Orders
Pramiti Basu vs Secretary General Supreme Court Of … on 31 July, 2025
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~64 to 68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11007/2025
PRAMITI BASU .....Petitioner
versus
SECRETARY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 11008/2025
ANUJ CHAUHAN .....Petitioner
versus
SECRETARY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 11043/2025
SHAHID AHMED .....Petitioner
versus
SECRETARY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 11067/2025
TARU PANT .....Petitioner
versus
SECRETARY GENERAL,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 11115/2025
SAURABH NISHAD .....Petitioner
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 1 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52
versus
SECRETARY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .....Respondent
Appearance: Mr. Shubham Prajapati, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mandal,
Mr. Akash Kumar, Mr. Phillip Massey, Mr. Mahipal
Singh, Ms. Mitali Mishra, Mr. Vishal Varma, Ms.
Neha Kumari & Mr. Aditya Raj Marandi, Advocates
for Petitioners in Item Nos. 64, 65, 66 & 68.
Mr. Amit George, Ms. Shivalika Rudrabatla & Mr.
Arkaneil Bhaumik, Advocates for Petitioner in Item
No. 67.
Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan
Prajapati & Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Advocates
for Respondent in Item Nos. 64 to 68 with
Mr. Ashutosh Kalia, Branch Officer, SCI
Mr. Gaurav Kapoor, Branch Officer, SCI
Ms. Sonika Khurana, Branch Officer, SCI
Ms. Ankita Zadoo, Court Assistant, SCI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 31.07.2025
CM APPL. 45322/2025 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 11007/2025
CM APPL. 45324/2025 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 11008/2025
CM APPL. 45466/2025 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 11043/2025
CM APPL. 45731/2025 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 11115/2025
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & CM APPL. 45323/2025 (for stay)
W.P.(C) 11008/2025 & CM APPL. 45325/2025 (for stay)
W.P.(C) 11043/2025 & CM APPL. 45467/2025 (for stay)
W.P.(C) 11067/2025 & CM APPL. 45542/2025 (for interim relief)
W.P.(C) 11115/2025 & CM APPL. 45732/2025 (for stay)
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 2 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52
1. Issue notice. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, learned counsel, accepts notice
on behalf of respondent – Supreme Court of India.
2. The petitioners are all candidates for appointment to the post of
Junior Court Assistant [“JCA”] in the establishment of the respondent.
They assail a notification of the respondent dated 14.07.2025, by which
they have been declared to have “Qualified” in the “Typing Test”, but
have scored marks below the cut-off for the next stage of recruitment,
which is a “Descriptive Test”.
3. The advertisement dated 04.02.2025 was for recruitment to 241
posts of JCA. The controversy concerns the following provisions with
regard to the “Scheme of examination”:-
“Scheme of Examination
The eligible candidates will have to appear in the tests in the following
subject:-
1. Objective Type Question paper with 2 hours
multiple choice answers containing 100
questions (consisting of 50 General
English questions including
comprehension, 25 General Aptitude
questions and 25 General Knowledge
questions).
2. Objective Type Computer Knowledge
Test (25 questions)
3. Typing (English) test on Computer with 10
minimum speed 35 w.p.m. (mistakes minutes
allowed upto 3% of total words to be
typed)
4. Descriptive Test (in English Language) 2 hours
consisting of Comprehension passage,
Precis Writing and Essay Writing
The candidates who qualify in the Objective Type Written Test and
Objective Type Computer Knowledge Test will only be called for
Typing Speed Test on Computer and Descriptive Test and those who
qualify the said tests will be required to appear for an Interview before
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 3 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52
an Interview Board and qualify the Interview by securing minimum
qualifying marks. Number of candidates to be called for Interview
shall not exceed the ratio of 1:3 i.e. 3 candidates against 1 vacancy
subject to availability of candidates who would be qualified on the
basis of above Tests. After qualifying in prescribed tests and Interview,
the selected candidates will be empanelled in the order of merit for
appointment as Junior Court Assistant. The candidates may note that
mere placement in panel does not confer any right on the candidates to
claim appointment for the post of Junior Court Assistant.”1
4. The petitioners all cleared the first two stages of recruitment, being
the Objective Type Question Paper and Objective Type Computer
Knowledge Test, and participated in the Typing Test. The manner in
which the Typing Test was to be evaluated is contained in the admit card
issued to the candidates. It provides for marks to be awarded, depending
upon the number of mistakes committed. It may be noted that 43.18
marks corresponds to three mistakes in the marking formula.
5. The notification dated 14.07.2025, by which the result of the
Typing Test was declared, reads as follows:-2
“Result of Typing Speed Test on Computer in respect of 10281
candidates for the post of Junior Court Assistant held on June 04,
2025
The candidates who have qualified Typing Speed Test on Computer
and secured 43.18 marks or more marks out of 50 marks in said test
along with 10 candidates of PwD category who have been exempted
from the said test are required to appear in Descriptive Test (in
English) to be conducted tentatively on 01.08.2025 in Delhi/NCR.
SI.No. Name Roll No. Qualified/Not Marks Scored
Qualified
1 Rahul Kumar 111100190100 Qualified 38.64
Gupta
2 Shubham Saurabh 111100330053 Not Qualified N/A
3 Amardip Kumar 111100170058 Not Qualified N/A
1
Emphasis supplied.
2
The first 20 rows of the table are extracted below by way of example. The document contains the
result of each of the 10,281 candidates, who participated in the Typing Test.
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 4 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52
4 Rishu Katiyar 111100190103 Qualified 43.18
5 Rohit Abhishek 111100350060 Not Qualified N/A
6 Surabhi Rai 111100300120 Qualified 34.09
7 Amit Abhishek 111100380318 Not Qualified N/A
8 Siddharth Kumar 111100380037 Not Qualified N/A
Singh
9 Arnav Raj 111100340132 Not Qualified N/A
10 Pranjal Priyadarshi 111100040194 Not Qualified N/A
11 Kriti Raj 111100010308 Not Qualified N/A
12 Sujit Prakash 111100190185 Not Qualified N/A
13 Vinay Kumar 111100290107 Not Qualified N/A
14 Avinash Kumar 111100290225 Not Qualified N/A
15 Md Adil Ansari 111100300119 Not Qualified N/A
16 Piyush Kumar 111100370100 Not Qualified N/A
17 Gaurav Kumar 111100640045 Exempted —-
18 Prince Kumar 111100290189 Not Qualified N/A
Verma
19 Sanehu Kumari 111100330200 Not Qualified N/A
20 Anupam Kumar Jha 111100350178 Qualified 27.27
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"
6. The contention of Dr. Amit George and Mr. Shubham Prajapati,
learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the imposition of a cut-off of
43.18 marks in the Typing Test was not contemplated by the
advertisement at all. Although the advertisement only provided for a
minimum speed of 35 words per minute, and maximum mistakes upto 3%
of the total words, a cut-off of 43.18 marks was laid down in the result
dated 14.07.2025, the reason by which the petitioners have been
disqualified for the Descriptive Test. This condition has been inserted
while the recruitment exercise is in progress, and according to learned
counsel, is tantamount to “changing the rules of the game mid-way”.
Learned counsel point out that the petitioners have been expressly
declared as “Qualified”, but have not been permitted to progress to the
next stage of recruitment. They rely upon the Constitution Bench
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 5 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52
judgment of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v.
Rajasthan High Court & Ors.3 and the judgment in Manoj Kumar v.
Union of India & Ors.4 in support of their contentions.
7. Ms. Lakra, on the other hand, submits that the advertisement itself,
in Clause 18, provides the power for the respondent to impose a cut-off or
benchmark to short list candidates. Clause 18 is reproduced as follows:-
“18. The Registry reserves its right to short-list candidates in any
manner as may be considered appropriate with the approval of
Competent Authority. The Registry reserves the right to
cancel/restrict/enlarge/modify/alter the recruitment process, if needed,
without issuing any notice.”
She also relies upon the judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak to submit that
such a provision for shortlisting of candidates is permissible, so long as it
is not contrary to the recruitment rules, and is not otherwise violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. According to Ms. Lakra, similar actions by
administrative authorities have been upheld by the Supreme Court in
Union of India & Anr. v. T. Sundararaman & Ors.5, and Tridip Kumar
Dingal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.6, which have been
considered in Tej Prakash Pathak, and also in Yogesh Yadav v. Union of
India & Ors.7
8. The matter requires further consideration, after giving Ms. Lakra
an opportunity to file an affidavit.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, seek interim relief of
permission to participate in the Descriptive Test, which is scheduled to be
3
(2025) 2 SCC 1 [hereinafter, “Tej Prakash Pathak”].
4
(2024) 3 SCC 563.
5
(1997) 4 SCC 664 [hereinafter, “T. Sundararaman”].
6
(2009) 1 SCC 768 [hereinafter, “Tridip Kumar Dingal”].
7
(2013) 14 SCC 623.
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 6 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52
held on 01.08.2025.
10. For the purposes of interim relief, I am of the view that the
respondent’s actions, in the present case, prima facie fall within the scope
of permissible discretion, subject to any allegation of non-compliance
with the rules and test of arbitrariness.
11. The Constitution Bench has recently had occasion to examine this
very question in Tej Prakash Pathak. The Court reached the following
conclusions:-
“Conclusions
65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:
65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the
advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of
vacancies;
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at
the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed
midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so
permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant
Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant
Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of
non-arbitrariness;
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.8 lays down good
law and is not in conflict with the decision in State of
Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha9. Subash Chander
Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the select list
whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the select
list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;
65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise
appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its
logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-
discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object
sought to be achieved;
8
(2008) 3 SCC 512 [hereinafter, “K. Manjusree”].
9
(1974) 3 SCC 220 [hereinafter, “Subash Chander Marwaha”].
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 7 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52
65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the
recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However,
where the rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative
instructions may fill in the gaps;
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to
appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may
choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the
State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a
person within the zone of consideration in the select list.”10
12. While identifying Article 14 of the Constitution and the doctrine of
legitimate expectation, as the bases of the requirement that rules ought
not to be changed while recruitment is in progress, the Court emphasised
the width of executive power to deal with administrative matters in public
interest, with which the Court would generally not interfere11. The Court
further observed as follows:
“52. Thus, in our view, the appointing authority/recruiting
authority/competent authority, in absence of rules to the contrary,
can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the
post and while doing so it may also set benchmarks for different
stages of the recruitment process including written examination and
interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same should be
stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. But if
the extant Rules or the advertisement inviting applications empower
the competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the
recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any time
before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate nor the
evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by surprise.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
54. As already noticed in Section (A), a recruitment process inter alia
comprises of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of
applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of
ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview
or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for
appointment. Subject to the rule against arbitrariness, how tests or
viva voce are to be conducted, what questions are to be put, in what
manner evaluation is to be done, whether a shortlisting exercise is10
Emphasis supplied.
11
Tej Prakash Pathak, paragraph Nos. 26 and 27.
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 8 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52
needed are all matters of procedure which, in absence of rules to the
contrary, may be devised by the competent authority. Often
advertisement(s) inviting applications are open-ended in terms of
these steps and leave it to the discretion of the competent authority to
adopt such steps as may be considered necessary in the
circumstances albeit subject to the overarching principle of rule
against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.”12
13. The Court has relied, for the purposes of the aforesaid
observations, inter alia, upon the judgments in T. Sundararaman and
Tridip Kumar Dingal.
14. The Supreme Court Officers & Servants (Conditions of Service
and Conduct) Rules, 1961, are the applicable rules for the said
recruitment. Although Ms. Lakra relied upon various other provisions
also, for the purposes of prima facie consideration, I am of the view that
reference to Rule 47 is sufficient at this stage. Rule 47 reads as follows:-
“47. Residuary Powers – Nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to
affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such-orders, from time to
time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters incidental or ancillary
to these rules not specifically provided for herein or in regard to
matters as have not been sufficiently provided for :
Provided that if any such order relates to salaries, allowances,
leave or pensions of Court servants, the same shall be made with the
approval of the President.”
The grant of discretion to the respondent in Clause 18 of the
advertisement is, thus, not contrary to any statutory rule.
15. As far as Article 14 of the Constitution is concerned, Ms. Lakra has
been instructed that the decision to call candidates for the Descriptive
Test was based upon a ratio of 1:10, i.e. ten times the number of the
notified posts. The benchmark of 43.18 marks has been set on this basis.
While this justification will have to be considered after filing of
12
Emphasis supplied.
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 9 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52
affidavits, I am of the prima facie view that it is a reasonable approach,
within the discretion of the respondent. Absent a Rule to the contrary, the
respondent cannot be compelled to incur the expense of time, effort and
resources, which would be necessitated by examining all qualified
candidates, in a descriptive test.
16. Having regard to the discussion above, I do not consider it
appropriate to pass any interim orders at this stage.
17. In any event, the next stage of examination will be held on
01.08.2025, and Ms. Lakra submits, upon instruction, that the process of
evaluation of the Descriptive Test will take upto three to four weeks.
18. Ms. Lakra states that counter affidavits will be filed within one
week. Rejoinders thereto, if any, may be filed by 11.08.2025.
19. List on 12.08.2025, in the category of “for Admission” matters.
20. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to file written
submissions, alongwith copies of any relevant judgments upon which
they wish to rely, at least one day before the next date of hearing.
21. It is made clear that the observations in this order are only for the
purpose of consideration of interim orders and will not prejudice the
rights and contentions of the parties at the stage of final hearing.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 31, 2025
‘pv’/AD/
W.P.(C) 11007/2025 & connected Matters Page 10 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 23:46:52