High Court in Delhi affirms Supreme Court administrator's authority to establish typing test eligibility benchmarks for court clerks.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India, presided over by Justice Prateek Jalan, has upheld the administrative discretion of the court in setting a cut-off for marks obtained in the typing test for the post of Junior Court Assistant (JCA). This decision was made in the case of Pramit Basu v Secretary General Supreme Court of India.

The petitioners, who had cleared the Typing Speed Test stage, were excluded from the next stage (Descriptive Test) due to their scores being below 43.18, the benchmark set after the test. However, the court argued that the decision to set the benchmark was non-arbitrary.

The Delhi High Court, in a previous ruling, had also supported the Supreme Court's stance, finding the decision to set the benchmark to be non-arbitrary and rejecting the challenge.

The Court's ruling stated that the candidates were aware of the marking scheme for the Typing Test, and there was no change in the parameters of assessment. The benchmark for the JCA recruitment was applied at multiple stages, with the authority reserved in clause 18.

The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgement of Tej Prakash Pathak and held that benchmarks may be introduced midway during the recruitment if rules/advertisements permit, provided the decision is not arbitrary. The Court rejected the argument that the cut-off amounts to changing the rules of the game midway because the condition was not published in the advertisement inviting applications.

A number of advocates represented the petitioners, including 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 was represented by 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.

The Court observed that there is no allegation in the case that the fundamental attributes of a selection process have been breached. The Court ruling marks a significant decision in the realm of recruitment processes in India, setting a precedent for the introduction of benchmarks midway during the recruitment process, provided the decision is not arbitrary.

The Court's ruling comes at a time when over 134,000 applicants were vying for 241 vacancies for the post of Junior Court Assistant. The large candidate pool justified the need for a stringent cut-off, ensuring only the most qualified candidates move forward in the recruitment process. The Court's decision aims to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the selection process for the Junior Court Assistant positions in the Supreme Court of India.

High Court in Delhi affirms Supreme Court administrator's authority to establish typing test eligibility benchmarks for court clerks.