Mayank Kumar Pandey vs Delhi High Court Through Registrar General

$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 23.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 9936/2026 CM APPL. 46218/2026
MAYANK KUMAR PANDEY
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Ms.
Shivani Verma and Mr. Swagata
Gupta, Advs.
versus
DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
.....Respondent
Through: Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“I. Pass an order directing respondent to extend the
time for submission of applications and conduct of the
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2026, as
per the notification dated 01.07.26 issued by the
Respondent (Annexed as Annexure P-1) in compliance
with the time schedule fixed by the hon’ble supreme
court in Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. V. U.P. Public
Service Commission & Ors. (Civil appeal no. 1867 of
2006)(Annexed as Annexure P-2)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:32:05
W.P.(C) 9936/2026 Page 1 of 5

II. Pass an order for issuance of writ of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside reply
dated 14.07.26 sent by the respondent (Annexed as
Annexure P-4) thereby rejecting the request made by
the petitioner vide representation dated 07.07.26
(Annexed as Annexure P-3) without citing any reason
and for any other direction
III. Pass any such direction or order that this Hon’ble
court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the above-mentioned case.”
2. The petitioner is seeking to set aside the reply of the respondent dated
14.07.2026 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 07.07.2026
wherein the petitioner had sought extension of time for submission of
application for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination, 2026.
3. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner by
drawing our attention to page 84 of the petition, states that the last date for
submitting the application being 15.07.2026, the respondent could not have
held the preliminary examination on 26.07.2026 that is after only eleven
days from the last date of filing the application. In support of his submission,
he has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 17
SCC 703 , more specifically order dated 04.01.2007 wherein, the Supreme
Court has prescribed schedule for the conducting judicial service
examination.
4. According to him, as per the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court,
atleast two months’ time has to be given to a candidate to prepare for an
examination and hence, in that sense, the examination should have been held
two months after the last date of submitting of the applications.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:32:05
W.P.(C) 9936/2026 Page 2 of 5

5. Mr. Mishra by drawing our attention to the aforesaid judgment also
submits that the respondent is within its right to seek extension of time from
the Supreme Court but could not have limited the period to prepare for the
examination by only 11 days from the last date of filing the application.
6. We are not impressed by the said submission of Mr. Mishra in view of
the fact that the Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)
(supra) has also stated as under:-
“Insofar as Delhi is concerned, it has been stated
that entire selection process is conducted by the
High Court and examination is held twice in a year
for the Delhi Judicial Service. The High Court may,
accordingly, amend the aforesaid time schedule so
as to conduct the selection process twice in a year
and the revised time schedule shall be placed on the
record of this case. For the present, the Delhi High
Court is permitted three months’ time for
publication of final result after the written
examination.”
7. Even otherwise, in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 2/2018 decided
on 22.10.2018, the Supreme Court has in paragraph 4.3 of the order has
stated as under:-
“4.3. Whether the time expected to be taken to
complete the on-going process/processes can be
shortened and the process/processes completed
before the time-schedule spelt out in Malik Mazhar
Sultan (3)¹ which time-schedule this Court would
understand to be indicating the outer time-limit and
not the minimum period for completion.”
8. From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear that certain
discretion is vested with the High Court to shorten the time for completing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:32:05
W.P.(C) 9936/2026 Page 3 of 5

the process before the time schedule as stipulated in Malik Mazhar Sultan
(3) (supra) .
9. It is necessary to note that the Supreme Court in the case of Rejanish
K.V. v. K. Deepa and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3947/2020 vide order dated
09.10.2025 directed amendment of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules,
1970. It is also a matter of record that pursuant thereto, the High Court of
Delhi amended the Rules on 19.02.2026. It is thereafter that the present
notification dated 01.07.2026 was issued wherein the schedule has been
fixed for conducting the examination. We also note that the Supreme Court
has clearly directed that the timelines are required to be strictly followed by
High Courts while conducting the examinations.
10. We have been informed by Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent that, around 1900 candidates (approximately)
have applied for the examination and they all have been issued hall tickets
for the preliminary examination on 26.07.2026. Since the candidates come
from different parts of the country and the examination centres are in Delhi,
it is very difficult for the respondent to change the date to a date as
convenient for the petitioner. It is also her case that, no other candidates
except the petitioner has sought extension of time beyond 26.07.2026.
11. At this stage, Ms. Kaul states that, in terms of the directions of the
Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) (supra) , the High Court is filing
the status report on the conduct of the examination and filling up of the
vacancies every year.
12. Given the facts stated by Ms. Kaul and for the reasons discussed
above, it is difficult for this Court to accede to the request made by the
petitioner for change of date of the preliminary examination for Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:32:05
W.P.(C) 9936/2026 Page 4 of 5

Higher Judicial Services, 2026. We find no merit in the petition. The same
is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application is also dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JULY 23, 2026 /sr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.07.2026
14:32:05
W.P.(C) 9936/2026 Page 5 of 5