A TALE OF A JUDICIAL SERVICE ASPIRANT
Our Hon’ble Chief Justice is
conscious of the fact that there is an acute shortage of judges at every level
of the justice delivery system and he rightly requested the executive to
increase the number of judges at every level, but before increasing the number
of judges it is relevant to take note of the fact as to how the appointment, in
the light of present number of vacancy, is being done in the lowest level of
judiciary in the system. [Before writing
further I want to make a disclaimer that I am a lower judicial service aspirant
and I am preparing for this exam from last 3 years in the Hindi speaking
states]
Presently
the pattern of selection in almost all the lower judicial service exam is same
that is:-
1.
Preliminary
Examination (Objective Type):-
Preliminary test for screening the candidates. It is also to reject all those
who is not able to come within the merit list of 10 times students of the
number of vacancies in any state (Rajasthan takes 15 times)
2. Written
Main Examination (Subjective Type):-
Mains Examinations for judging the subjective and practical knowledge of the
candidates on the law subjects + Language papers. (Subjects also vary from
state to state for example Delhi has only 14 law subjects/bare acts +
Uncodified tort law, whereas the Rajasthan has almost 35+ subjects.)
3.
Interview:- Personality Test/Interview for
all those candidates who are in the merit of the three times of the number of
vacancies. This is also subject to the criteria that candidates scored 40 to 50
% marks in the mains examination, depending upon the states. For eg.
Delhi/Haryana requires 50% in aggregate, wherein Himachal/Madhya Pradesh
requires 45% in aggregate and Rajasthan Requires 40% in aggregate.
However,
in this so called pattern of examination, few more steps is added due to faulty
preparation of the PT questions and some time faulty answers key to the PT and
sometimes faulty checking of the mains papers, as held in DJS-2014. (As 12 more
candidates were later declared qualified in the rechecking done under the
chairmanship of one former Supreme Court Judge.) I am not saying there cannot
be error on the part of examination authorities at all, but whenever there is
an error the examination authorities gives chance to the candidates to raise
objections to the same, but sometimes even after raising the objection, when
the objector do not get the relief from the examination authorities, he is
forced to file a writ before the concerned High Court for the same and by this
the process of selection, which is supposed to be completed within 1 year at
least get delayed by few months and sometimes by couple of years also.
I
am here citing 4 judgments of the different HCs, which dealt with the
objections to PT questions or the answer key differently.
Firstly,
the Orissa
HC, wherein it allowed the objections to the PT questions and directed to
hold fresh PT examination.
Secondly,
the Himachal
Pradesh HC, wherein it has said that we
cannot sit as an expert upon the objections to the PT questions despite the
facts that some answers to the PT questions was on the face of it wrong.
Thirdly,
the Allahabad
HC, wherein it has considered the objections and directed to revised
the result, herein the Allahabad HC also said that “The Commission need not
hold the main examination or interviews for the candidates who have already
appeared at the said examination and are found to be eligible to appear even
after the declaration of the revised result of the preliminary examination BUT
IF ANY CANDIDATE HAS APPEARED AND IS NOT FOUND TO BE ELIGIBLE AS HE HAS NOT
SECURED THE REQUISITE MARKS AFTER THE REVISED RESULT, HIS CANDIDATURE CAN
ALWAYS BE CANCELLED. The main examination, it is reiterated, should be held
only for such candidates who now become eligible to appear at the main
examination after revision of marks in the preliminary examination but could
not appear earlier.” It is pertinent to mention herein that even the interview
in the concerned UP –J exam 2015 has been completed by the PSC.
Fourthly,
the Delhi
HC judgment wherein the HC allowed the objection to 4 questions in the
PT exam and directed to delete those questions and to revised the result and to
come up with fresh cutoff. Herein the HC has directed to add all those
candidates, who comes in the merit after the revised result i.e. within the 10
times of the number of vacancy and all those who was qualified in the previous
result will continue to be eligible for writing the mains despite the facts
that they are after the revised result is not eligible as they are now out of
the merit.
This
has led to 7 steps in the judicial service exams
i.
PT
ii.
Writ
before HC ( also Appeal before SC sometimes against the order of the HC)
iii.
Mains
iv.
Writ
against the mains result (also Appeal before SC sometimes against the order of
the HC) - as held in DJS-2014
vii.
Final
Result (and even after final result if you are selected for Kerala judicial
service exam you might even be asked to compete again even after your training
is about to end. Read
here)
With respect to Delhi
Judicial Service exam, there is already a pending matter in which
suggestion is being given for making the judicial service exam more
transparent. The Supreme Court may come
up with a comprehensive guideline also, but is only Delhi Judicial exam needs
this reform. The time is running for everyone, for an aspirant for the judicial
service exams, for a litigant fighting the case and for the society as a whole.
And the time has come to frame comprehensive uniform guidelines for conducting
the judicial service exam. The examination authority can either be PSC or the
HC but the manner should be uniform for both. The uncertainty created by the
manner in which examination authorities are dealing with the objections and the
manner of checking the papers has done more injustice to the candidates who
qualify the PT or Mains earlier (as the already admitted candidates will have
to wait more/ he or she may have taken off from the job/work for the exam, or
maybe he or she needs to travel for the exam) than the justice to those who are
being admitted subsequently after revising the result. I am not suggesting that
the candidates should not be admitted after removal of the fault of the
examining authority, but what I am suggesting is that there should not be a
fault at all by the examination authorities in view of the modern technology
being available. So that no one suffer due to this uncertainty. I hope the
Hon’ble Chief Justice will look into this injustice to people like me, but for
that I believe, I also have to file a WRIT before the Supreme Court of India.
Regards
One of the Judicial Service
Aspirant.