IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 514 OF 2015 IN THE MATTER OF: Centre for Public Interest Litigation …PETITIONER VERSUS Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi …RESPONDENT REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 1. On 13th April, 2016 hearing, the Petitioner submitted a short note for the reform of the DJS (“Delhi judicial Service”) examination. It had total of 6 suggestions, for example checked answer books should be available under RTI Act (“Right to Information Act, 2005”). The Respondent in response to that have submitted an affidavit on 21st July 2016, in which some of the mentioned submissions have been accepted and some not. This is a brief rejoinder to the same on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. Point (a) of the short note submitted, suggested that the OMR sheets in the PT (“Preliminary Test”) be filled in pen. The respondent have agreed to the same. 3. Point (d) of the note suggested that as per two Supreme Court of India judgments, the candidates be given a copy of their checked answer books under RTI. The Respondent has also agreed to the same. 4. Point (b) of the note suggested that the names of the candidates be declared in the PT exam and also the other results – that is the mains result, interview call and final selection list. The Respondent contest this by saying that this would “increase the examiners burden” and also that UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) doesn’t not follow this. The Petitioner most humbly submits that decreasing of the examiners burden should not be a priority and transparency should instead be the priority. Also that the Respondent is misleading this 1 Hon’ble Court as UPSC, does in fact, declare the names in the mains, interview and also the final selection list. All other State’s judicial examinations publish the names. The Respondent itself, in the last April 13th 2016 hearing had agreed to publish the names. 5. Point (c) of the note suggested that the procedure of checking of the mains marks as laid down in 3 Supreme Court of India judgments be followed in letter and spirit – the Respondent contests this. The Respondent avers that the “Rationalization” only applies when 2 or more examiners and in DJS examination there is only 1 examiner. It is most humbly submitted by the Petitioner that “Rationalization” is only one part of the procedure. The full procedure is that there must be a chief examiner, who then sets the paper and also makes the model answers. Then additional examiners are appointed who then check the papers as per the model answers. And then finally the chief examiner conducts “Rationalization” where he basically checks if the additional examiners checked as per his specification. Such procedure was explicitly laid down in Sanjay Singh [(2007) 3 SCC 720] and categorically was held to apply in the checking of papers in Judicial Services examination in Sujasha Mukherji v High Court of West Bengal [2015 AIR (SCW) 1582]. The Respondent is bound by Article 141 to follow this checking procedure in letter and spirit. 6. Point (e) of the note suggested that instead of arbitrary absolute cut offs be replaced with ranking method – the Respondent contest this saying that minimum standards will be maintained if such minimum marks are required – the Petitioner submits that the aim is salutary but the execution is faulty. As statistically the most robust method of merit selection is “ranks” and not “pre-determined minimum marks”. This ranks system is followed in UPSC, IIT, IIM, NEET, DU and also international exams like GRE and GMAT. Also had UPSC followed this cut off system then: a) This year’s UPSC topper Tina Dabi would not even be allowed to sit for the interview let alone, top the exam & b) There would have been ZERO recruitments in 2016’s UPSC exam – as not even a single candidate of the lakhs 2 that appeared, scored more than 50% in the mains. A simple illustration of the cut-of system would be for example - for a total of 5 seats of judicial officers, 100 candidates apply. Now, there are 2 cut offs that are applied – 5X (5 times the number of seats), sit for the mains and 2X for the interview. So this means after the PT, 25 candidates sit for the mains and after the mains, 10 candidates sit for the interview. And after the interview, the rank list of all 10 is declared and the score (mains marks + interview marks) of the 5th candidate constitute the final cut off. This way everyone wins – the Respondent gets the best students, the population gets the best judges and best students see judiciary as a viable career option. 7. Point (f) of the note suggested that DJS examination be held every year like the UPSC exam – the Respondent contest this, citing, paucity of infrastructure and funds. It is most humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court has held in a catena of judgments that financial constraints are no reason to abdicate public duty – in this case the duty to provide adequate number of judges to the populace for an efficient jus delivery system. 8. In addition to the above points the Petitioner would humbly like to add a few clarifications to preclude and ambiguity: A. The relative rankings system should apply to all 3 stages – PT, Mains and also the interview stage B. In case of kith or kin appears before the interview panel, then such concerned judge must recuse him/herself – This should apply to own children, relatives and former law clerk. C. All of these points should apply also to the Delhi Higher Judiciary exam as conducted by the Respondent. (Prashant Bhushan) Counsel for the Petitioners Dated: ___ July 2016 3