WITHOUT PREPARING MERIT LIST OF CANDIDATES; DIRECT RECRUITMENT OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGES; Yes it is possible!
An application was filed in this regard by RTI activist DEV ASHISH BATTACHARYA
in which he had sought details of the marks obtained by the selected candidates
and also the names and marks obtained by the first five candidates in the merit
list in the preliminary, main and viva voce examinations.
The answer is yes, if one goes by the information supplied by the Himachal
Pradesh High Court under the Right to Information Act regarding direct
recruitment of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGES IN 2007.
As per information provided by the State Public Information Officer of the High
Court, only one candidate was finally selected to the cadre of the district and
additional district judge. The candidate from the general category.
However, regarding the names and marks obtained by the first five candidates,
he states that the organization and administration branch of the high court has
reported that no such detail of first five candidates has been prepared.
The selected candidate had obtained 163 marks out of 300 marks in the
preliminary examination and his score in the paper of criminal laws was only 21
out of 100 marks. The detail regarding marks obtained in viva voce reads:
Average marks out of aggregate of 300 marks X 9= 207.22 or 207 marks
The high court had advertised two vacancies, one for ST candidates and the
other for general category candidates. In all, 171 candidates, including nine
ST candidates, appeared in the preliminary examination.
The selected candidate was placed at the 47th place in the list of candidates
declared successful in the preliminary examination. The rules lay down that a
maximum of 35 candidates can be called for the main examination against a post.
It is not clear what criterion was followed for calling candidates for the main
examination and the interview. .
A candidate, Pramod Goyal, who was not called for the interview had moved the
high court for the re-evaluation of his paper of constitutional law. The expert
who re-evaluated the paper said in his report that the examiner had been
stringent in marking his paper and that he had done as good as the candidates
who had been selected for the interview. He should be awarded 100 marks instead
of 94 like other selected candidates. While Goyal was called for the interview
after re-evaluation. Others whose papers were also subjected to such stringent
marking got no such relief.
Bhattacharya points out that the case of Goyal makes it clear that the criteria
for calling candidates for the main examination and the interview were
different. A candidate securing 21 marks out of 100 in a paper in the
preliminary examination was called for the main examination (and he eventually
got selected), but Goyal who obtained 94 marks out of 200 in a paper in the
main examination in the first evaluation was not called for the interview.
The best course, Bhatacharya says, to avoid such controversies is that
institutions like the high court and the Vidhan Sabha, which have to oversee
the functioning of the entire administrative system, should not get involved in
the business of recruitments and, like other departments, leave it to the state
public service commission and the subordinate services board.
Rajneesh Madhok,
B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, St. No. 2,
Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415
Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: [email protected]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
