The Supreme Court today asked the Delhi High Court Registry to accept few suggestions, including a provision to give answer sheets to candidates under RTI, for bringing more transparency and fairness in future judicial services examinations.
A bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and R F Nariman asked Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, appearing for the High Court Registry, to also accept suggestion that besides the roll numbers of successful candidates, their names be also revealed in the results.
"What is there to achieve by making public the names? The moment a name is relatable to a judge, the allegations are being leveled," the ASG said, objecting to the suggestion that the names of successful candidates be made public in results. The plea, however, was rejected by the bench.
The suggestions were given by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL)' through lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
While disposing of a batch of pleas, alleging arbitrary evaluation of answer sheets in the judicial services examinations held in 2014, the bench also said that the OMR answer sheets be now filled up by ball pen instead of pencils and there should be "rationalisation" of marks in the judicial services examinations in the light of guidelines laid down in various apex court judgements.
The bench said that students must have "intrinsic faith" in the present examination system as it is the hallmark of a "civilised society".
Earlier, the High Court Registry had apprised the apex court that it has found eleven candidates, who were initially unsuccessful in 2014 Delhi Judicial Services examination, suitable for appointment as lower court judges after re-evaluation.
"As per the report, twelve candidates were to appear in the interview, but one candidate did not appear and hence, eleven were interviewed.
"All the eleven candidates have been found suitable. The respondents (Registry) are at liberty to issue letters of appointment to the selected candidates," it had said.
(Reopens LGD12)
The apex court had also asked its registry to supply the copies of the report, submitted by Justice P V Reddi committee which had re-examined the answer scripts of unsuccessful candidates, to the counsel for CPIL and other petitioners.
The court, on March 10, had asked the Delhi High Court to interview the 12 successful candidates within four weeks.
The bench, which had on December 14, 2015 asked former apex court judge Justice Reddi to re-evaluate the answer sheets of nearly 650 unsuccessful candidates of the 2014 DJS examination, had considered the interim report of the panel declaring 12 more candidates as successful.
It had also said the 12 candidates will be interviewed by the same board which had interviewed other successful candidates.
It had also made it clear that the appointment of already selected 15 candidates as judges would not be "touched".
Out of 659 candidates, who had qualified in preliminary and taken up the main examination, only 15 persons were selected for appointment after the interview against nearly 80 advertised vacancies.
