A TALE OF A JUDICIAL SERVICE ASPIRANT

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

v.                  Interview

vi.          Writ against the interview result (as held recently in the Patna Higher Judicial Service exam)

          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.