Delhi High Court upholds Supreme Court’s cut-off rule in Junior Court Assistant typing recruitment, stressing merit-based selection with no bias, no favouritism, and complete transparency in the process.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a crucial ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the Supreme Court’s administrative discretion in fixing a cut-off for the typing test stage of the Junior Court Assistant (JCA) recruitment process. The decision came in Pramit Basu v Secretary General Supreme Court of India, where a batch of candidates challenged the benchmark of 43.18 marks that was applied after the typing test.
Background of the Case
The recruitment drive for Junior Court Assistants attracted over 134,000 applications for just 241 vacancies. The selection process involved multiple stages, including a Typing Speed Test, a Descriptive Test, and subsequent evaluations. While many candidates cleared the typing test, they were denied progression because their marks fell short of the cut-off benchmark set at 43.18.
Petitioners argued that this benchmark was unfair as it was not mentioned in the recruitment advertisement. According to them, introducing such a condition midway amounted to “changing the rules of the game” and violated the principle of fair selection.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The benchmark of 43.18 marks was not disclosed in the original advertisement.
- Introducing such a requirement amounted to “changing the rules of the game midway”, violating principles of fairness and transparency.
- Since they had already cleared the Typing Speed Test, they should have been eligible to proceed to the Descriptive Test.
SC’s Secretary General Arguments:
- Clause 18 of the recruitment notification gave the authority the right to prescribe benchmarks at different stages.
- The decision to set a cut-off was non-arbitrary, applied uniformly, and necessary to manage the huge number of candidates.
- The benchmark ensured that only the most meritorious candidates progressed further, in line with the objectives of fair recruitment.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Prateek Jalan, however, rejected this argument. The Court observed that the marking scheme for the Typing Test had always been transparent, with candidates aware that both speed and accuracy would be assessed. The introduction of a cut-off, therefore, did not amount to a change in the rules.
“Shortlisting was an intermediate stage based on vacancies; candidates knew the marking scheme of speed and accuracy, there was no change, no element of surprise.”
the Court ruled.
The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak, which permits the introduction of benchmarks during recruitment, provided they are authorized by rules or advertisements and are not arbitrary. Referring to Clause 18 of the recruitment notification, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had reserved the authority to take such measures.
“The objective of recruitment is to select the most suitable candidate through impartial, merit-based selection, avoiding patronage and favouritism—none of which stand breached in this case.”
it said
Key Observations:
- No surprise element: The assessment criteria, speed and accuracy, remained unchanged.
- Authority to fix benchmarks: Clause 18 of the recruitment rules empowered the Court to make necessary decisions.
- Non-arbitrariness: The benchmark was applied uniformly and justified, given the sheer volume of applicants.
- Objective selection: The Court reiterated that recruitment must ensure merit-based, impartial selection, free from favoritism.
Justice Jalan emphasized that the essence of recruitment lies in finding the most suitable candidates through transparent and merit-driven processes. Since there was no allegation of favoritism or deviation from these principles, the challenge had no merit.
Verdict:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Supreme Court acted within its authority and in a non-arbitrary manner. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s stance that administrative bodies have a degree of discretion in managing large-scale recruitment processes, provided fundamental fairness and transparency are maintained.
Appearance:
For the petitioners: Advocates Amit George, Arkaneil Bhaumik, Shivalika Rudrabatla, Kartikay Puneesh, Dushyant Kaul, Rupam Jha, Medhavi Bhaila, Shubham Prajapati, Rakesh Kumar Mandal, Akash Kumar, Phillip Massey, Mahipal Singh, Shrishti, Aditya Raj Marandi and Muskan Dulet
The Supreme Court Secretary General: Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Pratima N Lakra and advocates Amit Gupta, Chandan Prajapati, RV Prabhat, Vinay Yadav, Vikram Aditya, Shubham Sharma, Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Naman.
Case Title:
Pramit Basu v Secretary General Supreme Court of India
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES