Pawan Kumar v. High Court of Delhi General and Anr

2. The petitioner had appeared as a candidate in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination-2015, the preliminary objective type examination held on 3rd April, 2016. The contention of the petitioner is that the question paper did not follow the earlier pattern of question papers set for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination. 2016:DHC:3449-DB Reference is made to the question paper for the examination held in the year 2014. The petitioner submits that the 2015 paper had 42 general knowledge questions, whereas the 2014 question paper had 15 general knowledge questions. Thus, the petitioner was taken by surprise. This change in pattern violates right to equal treatment. The petitioner urges that over emphasis on a larger number of questions relating to general knowledge has no rationale and is coarse, for it prevents fair assessment of legal knowledge and acumen.

3. We have considered the said contention, but do not find any merit in the same.

4. The advertisement inviting applications for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination-2015, as published, had stated that there would be a Preliminary (Objective Type) Examination of 250 marks. The syllabus for the said Preliminary (Objective Type) question paper comprised: General Knowledge, Current Affairs, English Language and the Constitution of India, the Evidence Act, the Limitation Act, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indian Penal Code, the Contract Act, the Partnership Act, Principles governing Arbitration Law, the Specific Relief Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Transfer of Property Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the questions in the Preliminary (Objective Type) Examination were outside or beyond the syllabus.

5. Framing of questions or pattern of question paper is a part and parcel for the 'selection procedure' for appointment, and lies within the domain of the paper setter or expert bodies constituted for the said purpose. Courts cannot interfere and adjudicate on the frame of the question paper or particular nature of questions. How and which question should be included in the objective type question paper and the division of questions under the different heads is for the paper setter to decide. The petitioner cannot claim and profess a vested right on the questions or a number of questions on a subject which should be included in the question paper. Earlier question papers or a question paper pattern does not confer any right to claim that there cannot be a change in pattern or the number of questions on a particular subject. The contention, we profess is farfetched and preposterous. In fact, frequent changes in pattern, it would be argued, may be desirable.

6. Our attention was drawn to the question paper enclosed as Annexure-D. We find that these are general knowledge questions, including questions based on the Constitution and judicial decisions, Judges etc. Scope and ambit of judicial review in such cases is very limited and unless something absurd and execrable is noticed and is palpable, interference is not warranted. [see N. Lokanadham Vs. Chairman, Telecom Commission & Ors (2008) 5 SCC 155]. It was held by the Supreme Court in Sanchit Bansal & Anr. v. Joint Admission Board and Others (2012) 1 SCC 157:-

7. Candidates who clear the Preliminary (Objective Type) Examination and also secure required ranking are shortlisted to appear in the Main Examination (Descriptive Type), which comprises of two papers carrying 250 marks. The Main Examination (Descriptive type) obviously will test legal knowledge of the candidates. The question paper in question has a substantial number of legal questions.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J. NAJMI WAZIRI, J. MAY 03, 2016 NA