Court Dismisses Petition to Delay Judicial Exam, Citing Supreme Court Guidelines and Practical Constraints
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Mayank Kumar Pandey seeking an extension of time for the submission of applications and the rescheduling of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2026. The court upheld the existing schedule, emphasizing adherence to the Supreme Court's directives and the practical challenges of altering the timeline at this stage.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, argued that the timeline between the last date for application submission (July 15, 2026) and the preliminary examination date (July 26, 2026) was insufficient for candidates to prepare adequately. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2008, the petitioner contended that at least two months should be provided for preparation.
However, the bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora found no merit in the petitioner's claims. The court noted that the Supreme Court allows High Courts certain discretion to amend examination timelines as long as the process adheres to the broader guidelines. The bench highlighted that the Supreme Court's timeline serves as an outer limit rather than a minimum requirement, allowing for flexibility in scheduling.
Additionally, the court acknowledged the logistical challenges presented by the respondent, the Delhi High Court through the Registrar General. Advocate Aakanksha Kaul, representing the respondent, informed the court that approximately 1,900 candidates had been issued hall tickets for the upcoming examination, with arrangements already in place for candidates traveling from various parts of the country. Changing the schedule at this juncture would pose significant difficulties.
The court also referenced the recent amendment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions, underscoring the need for timely completion of the examination process to fill judicial vacancies.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it alongside the pending application. This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining a structured and timely examination process while balancing the logistical constraints inherent in such large-scale assessments.
Bottom line:-
Judicial Service Examination - High Court has discretion to amend the schedule for conducting judicial service examinations to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directions, but such discretion must align with practical constraints and established timelines.
Statutory provision(s): Judicial Service Examination Schedule, Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 2/2018
Mayank Kumar Pandey v. Delhi High Court, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2948597
