PRAMITI BASU v. SECRETARY GENERAL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Judgment

1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are all candidates for appointment to the post of Junior Court Assistant [“JCA”] in the respondent-Supreme Court of India, pursuant to an advertisement dated

04.02.2025. They are aggrieved by a notification dated 14.07.2025, by which results of the Typing Speed Test stage of the recruitment process were declared. The petitioners’ grievance is that they have been excluded from the next stage of recruitment [Descriptive Test], despite having been declared as qualified in the Typing Speed Test. 2. As the petitions are predicated on virtually identical grounds, they were taken up for hearing together. W.P.(C) 11007/2025 was treated as the lead case. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the pleadings filed therein have been considered in respect of all the petitions. W.P.(C) 11007/2025 and connected matters Page 2 of 31 A. FACTS: 3. The respondent advertised 241 vacancies for the post of JCA on

04.02.2025. The present dispute concerns the “Scheme of Examination” provided in the advertisement, which is reproduced below: “Scheme of Examination The eligible candidates will have to appear in the tests in the following subject:-

4. Objective Type Question paper with multiple choice answers containing 100 questions (consisting of 50 General English including questions comprehension, 25 General Aptitude questions and 25 General Knowledge questions). Objective Type Computer Knowledge Test (25 questions) Typing (English) test on Computer with minimum speed 35 w.p.m. (mistakes allowed upto 3% of total words to be typed) Descriptive Test (in English Language) consisting of Comprehension passage, Precis Writing and Essay Writing 2 hours 10 minutes 2 hours The candidates who qualify in the Objective Type Written Test and Objective Type Computer Knowledge Test will only be called for Typing Speed Test on Computer and Descriptive Test and those who qualify the said tests will be required to appear for an Interview before an Interview Board and qualify the Interview by securing minimum qualifying marks. Number of candidates to be called for Interview shall not exceed the ratio of 1:3 i.e. 3 candidates against 1 vacancy subject to availability of candidates who would be qualified on the basis of above Tests. After qualifying in prescribed tests and Interview, the selected candidates will be empanelled in the order of merit for appointment as Junior Court Assistant. The candidates may note that mere placement in panel does not confer any right on the candidates to claim appointment for the post of Junior Court Assistant.”1 1 Emphasis supplied. W.P.(C) 11007/2025 and connected matters Page 3 of 31

The petitioners were successful in the first two stages of the examination, which comprised of Objective Type Question Paper and the Objective Type Computer Knowledge Test. They were therefore called for a Typing Test on computer. The admit cards for the Typing Speed Test contained several “Instructions to Candidates”, of which the following are relevant: “Instruction to Candidates: English Typing test of SCI will be conducted in following manner. Exam Typing Passage English Typing 350 Words Exam Duration 25 mins Exam Structure Mock Test (5 mins) + Break (10 mins) + English Typing (10 mins)

3. 10 minutes will be given for actual Typing Test (English) 4. Candidates will be able to do a practice typing test for 5 minutes before the actual typing test 5. There will also be a break of 10 minutes between Mock / Practice and the Actual Typing Test. Marking Formula for Typing Speed Test on Computer No. of mistakes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Marks to be awarded out of maximum 50 marks 50.00 47.73 45.45 43.18 40.91 38.64 36.36 34.09 31.82 29.55 27.27 25.00” W.P.(C) 11007/2025 and connected matters Page 4 of 31

5. By the impugned notification dated 14.07.2025, the respondent declared the result of the Typing Speed Test held on 04.06.2025 for 10,281 candidates. The opening paragraph of the notification and first 20 rows, by way of example, are reproduced below: “Result of Typing Speed Test on Computer in respect of 10281 candidates for the post of Junior Court Assistant held on June 04, 2025 The candidates who have qualified Typing Speed Test on Computer and secured 43.18 marks or more marks out of 50 marks in said test along with 10 candidates of PwD category who have been exempted from the said test are required to appear in Descriptive Test (in English) to be conducted tentatively on 01.08.2025 in Delhi/NCR. Sl.No. Name Roll No. Qualified/Not Qualified Marks Scored 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Qualified 111100190100 111100330053 Not Qualified 111100170058 Not Qualified 111100190103 Qualified 111100350060 Not Qualified 111100300120 Qualified 111100380318 Not Qualified 111100380037 Not Qualified Rahul Kumar Gupta Shubham Saurabh Amardip Kumar Rishu Katiyar Rohit Abhishek Surabhi Rai Amit Abhishek Siddharth Kumar Singh Arnav Raj 111100340132 Not Qualified Pranjal Priyadarshi 111100040194 Not Qualified 111100010308 Not Qualified Kriti Raj 111100190185 Not Qualified Sujit Prakash 111100290107 Not Qualified Vinay Kumar 111100290225 Not Qualified Avinash Kumar 111100300119 Not Qualified Md Adil Ansari 111100370100 Not Qualified Piyush Kumar 111100640045 Exempted Gaurav Kumar 111100290189 Not Qualified Prince Kumar Verma Sanehu Kumari Anupam Kumar Jha 111100350178 Qualified 111100330200 Not Qualified

38.64 N/A N/A 43.18 N/A 34.09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ---- N/A N/A 27.27 xxx"2 2 Emphasis supplied. W.P.(C) 11007/2025 and connected matters Page 5 of 31

6. As far as the five petitioners are concerned, their results were as follows: Sl.No. Name Roll No. 828 1956 4713 6634 9075 Saurabh Nishad Pramiti Basu Anuj Chauhan Shahid Ahmed Taru Pant 272104910110 Qualified/Not Qualified Qualified Marks Scored 40.91 136101030006 268104840252 158101620040 145101300201 Qualified Qualified Qualified Qualified

38.64 40.91 38.64 38.64

7. It is evident from the above that, although the petitioners were declared “Qualified”, they did not achieve the score of 43.18, as required to appear in the Descriptive Test. B. MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE RESPONDENT

8. The respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 08.08.2025, and an additional affidavit dated 14.08.20253. The respondent also produced before the Court its record relating to the impugned recruitment. A copy of the record was handed up to the Court at the hearing on 18.08.2025. Although the extracts of the record have not been annexed to the affidavit filed by the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners were permitted to inspect the record, and make their submissions thereupon. The order of the Court dated 18.08.2025 records that this procedure was adopted with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. A photocopy of the relevant Note from the respondent’s record has been placed in a sealed cover with the Registry. 3 Filed pursuant to permission granted by order dated 12.08.2025. W.P.(C) 11007/2025 and connected matters Page 6 of 31

9. In the affidavits filed by the respondent, they have traced the power to shortlist candidates, to Clause 18 of the Advertisement, which reads as follows: “18. The Registry reserves its right to short-list candidates in any manner as may be considered appropriate with the approval of Competent Authority. The Registry cancel/restrict/enlarge/modify/alter needed, without issuing any notice.”4 the recruitment process, reserves

10. The respondent has also relied upon the Supreme Court Officers & Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961 [“the Rules”], specifically Rule 47, which reads as follows: “47. Residuary Powers - Nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such-orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters incidental or ancillary to these rules not specifically provided for herein or in regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided for: Provided that if any such order relates to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions of Court servants, the same shall be made with the approval of the President.” In the respondent’s counter affidavit dated 08.08.2025, the

11. following data has been provided with regard to the recruitment in question: “5. That the complete data of candidates participated for the notified post of 241 are as under: Sr. No. i. Figures 1,34,608 Particulars Total Number of applications received for the post of Junior Court Assistant Number of candidates appeared in MCQ Test (Written Test) Number of candidates qualified in MCQ Test (Written Test) Number of candidates shortlisted for typing speed test on computer 76,749 61,561 10,993 ii. iii. iv. 4 Emphasis supplied. W.P.(C) 11007/2025 and connected matters Page 7 of 31 shortlisted on the basis of 100 or more marks out of 125 marks in MCQ Test (Written Test) Number of candidates appeared Typing Speed Test on Computer Number of candidates qualified for Typing Speed Test on computer having secured minimum qualified 25 marks or more Number of candidates shortlisted for appearing in Descriptive Test out of candidates who qualified Typing Speed exempted from Test on Computer (Criteria applied – ratio of 1:10) candidates securing marks 43.18 or more were shortlisted Number of candidates appeared in Descriptive Test 10,281 3731 2651+10 PwD Candidates exempted Typing Test 2547” v. vi. vii. viii.

12. The justification for the benchmark of 43.18 marks is provided in the following extracts of the counter affidavit: “8. That the benchmark of 43.18 marks (i.e., candidates committing up to 3 mistakes in the Typing Test) was fixed by the Registry with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Competent Authority’), taking into account the limited number of 241 vacancies and the requirement to maintain a 1:10 ratio of candidates for the next stage. Accordingly, only candidates who secured 43.18 marks or more were shortlisted. This administrative decision was based on performance merit and was consistent with the shortlisting principle applied in the earlier stage of recruitment. 9. That it is relevant to note that shortlisting on the basis of a benchmark was also applied at the earlier stage. Out of 61,561 candidates who qualified in the Written Test, only 10,993 candidates scoring 100 marks or more out of 125 were shortlisted for the Typing Speed Test. This demonstrates that benchmarking has been a consistent feature of the entire recruitment process and was applied transparently and objectively at every stage and the petitioners were well aware of the same. W.P.(C) 11007/2025 and connected matters Page 8 of 31

12. That the benchmark of 43.18 marks was finalized upon the submission of a note dated 09.07.2025 and approved by the Competent Authority on 18.07.2025, in consultation with the Hon’ble Judge nominated to oversee the conduct of the examination. Pursuant to this, a total of 2,651 candidates, who secured 43.18 marks or more, and 10 PwD candidates (exempted from the Typing Test) were shortlisted for the Descriptive Test. 13. That the decision to apply the said benchmark is further supported and validated by Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Officers & Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961, as well as Article 146 of the Constitution of India, which vests the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India with absolute discretion in matters of appointment and conduct of recruitment in the Supreme Court. 14. In view of the above, it is submitted that the fixation of the 43.18 benchmark is neither arbitrary nor retrospective, but rather a lawful, consistent, and rational exercise of administrative discretion. The same was necessary to ensure efficient processing of candidates for the limited vacancies and is fully in line with the terms of the recruitment notification, service rules, and constitutional scheme. The Petitioner’s challenge to the shortlisting process is, therefore, unfounded and liable to be rejected.”

13. In the additional affidavit dated 14.08.2025, paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit dated 08.08.2025 has been clarified, to the extent that the Registry Note dated 09.07.2025 was approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India [“Competent Authority”] on 10.07.2025, in consultation with the Hon’ble Judge nominated to oversee the conduct of the examination [“Nominated Authority”]. The date of “18.07.2025” referred in paragraph 12, was in fact the date of approval of a modification/corrigendum, which was approved by the Nominated Authority. C. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

14. Dr. Amit George, who appears for the petitioner in W.P. (C) 11067/2025, advanced arguments on her behalf. Mr. Shubham Prajapati, W.P.(C) 11007/2025 and connected matters Page 9 of 31 learned counsel for the petitioners in the other four writ petitions, supplemented Dr. George’s arguments. 15. The principal submission of Dr. George was that the imposition of a cut-off of 43.18 marks in the Typing Test, to proceed to the Descriptive Test stage, was not provided in the advertisement and was, therefore, tantamount to “changing rules of the game mid-way”. He submitted that a plain reading of the “Scheme of Examination” provided the criteria for qualification in the Typing Test, both in terms of minimum speed (35 words per minute) and maximum error count (3% of the total words to be typed). In fact, it was submitted that the petitioners have rightly been declared as qualified, on the basis of these very criteria. Once these conditions were met, they were entitled to participate in the Descriptive Test without any further condition, but have been excluded, for which there is no justification. There was neither any ambiguity in the advertisement, nor any statutory rule, which permitted such a condition. 16. Dr. George submitted that, in the facts of the present case, Clause 18 could not have been used to insert a further qualification requirement to the criteria already mentioned in the advertisement. In circumstances when the benchmark has been set in the advertisement, it was submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors5 precludes setting of an additional merit-based benchmark6, in the manner indicated in paragraph 11 of the respondent’s additional affidavit. Dr. George argued that the effect of permitting such a broad interpretation of Clause 18 would, in fact, 5 (2025) 2 SCC 1 [hereinafter, “Tej Prakash Pathak”]. 6 Ibid, paragraph 52. W.P.(C) 11007/2025 and connected matters Page 10 of 31 diminish the central ratio of the Constitution Bench decision, that “rules of the game ought not to be changed mid-way”. 17. Dr. George urged that shortlisting based on a multiple of the number of vacancies, cannot be permitted at the Descriptive Test stage. In the advertisement, such a process was expressly applicable only at the Interview stage, for which a maximum of three candidates were to be called for each vacancy. He argued that, prior to the Interview stage, the minimum qualifications prescribed ought themselves to have been employed for the purposes of shortlisting. 18. It was further submitted that, to the extent that Tej Prakash Pathak permits setting of benchmark at different stages of the recruitment process, it requires this to be done before the stage in question is reached. In the present case, Dr. George submitted that the benchmark was set only after the Typing Test had been concluded. He argued additionally that the Typing Test and Descriptive Test are, in terms of the advertisement, a single stage of recruitment, and no filtering of candidates was permissible, other than by application of the qualifying criteria. 19. In addition to Tej Prakash Pathak, Dr. George cited the judgements of the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar v. Union of India7 and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi8, in support of the above contentions. He also referred to an article by Professor C.H. Powell in the Constitutional Court Review9, to submit that the respondent, being the