ORDER : On 2nd November, 2015, this Court had passed the following order:- “In course of hearing of these writ petitions, a suggestion was given to the learned counsel appearing for the parties that in the obtaining factual matrix of the case, there should be nomination of an examiner, who should peruse the answer scripts of the candidates and submit a valuation report to this Court. Needless to say, such a step is being thought of regard being had to the facts of the present case.” 2. Thereafter, on 14th December, 2015, this Court, after hearing Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel for the High Court of Delhi, had passed an order, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “We have been apprised at the Bar that 659 candidates had qualified in the preliminary examination and appeared in the main examination and out of the same, 15 candidates have been selected after facing the interview. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the total vacancies are 80 in number. Be that as it may. It is well settled in law that if the suitable candidates are not found, the employer is not obliged to fill up the posts. However, we desire to address the grievance of the petitioners who had appeared in the main examination and treat it as a special case and direct as follows: (a) The candidates who have not been qualified in the main examination to appear in the interview, their papers shall be revalued on the parameters of the marks obtained by the last general category candidate who has been selected in the general category. If there are further reserved posts, the said parameter applicable to Scheduled Castes who have been selected shall also be adhered to in respect of the candidates who belong to Scheduled Castes. We may hasten to clarify, if there are no further posts in the reserved category, the said exercise need not be taken recourse to. (b) Regard being had to the fact that the papers have initially valued by the six examiners, we think it appropriate that a former Supreme Court Judge should be requested to revalue the answer papers as we have mentioned in paragraph (a). (b) Regard being had to the fact that the papers have initially valued by the six examiners, we think it appropriate that a former Supreme Court Judge should be requested to revalue the answer papers as we have mentioned in paragraph (a). (c) If any candidate is found fit on the test applied as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, they shall be called for interview by the same Board that had interviewed the earlier candidates. (d) We request Justice P.V. Reddi, formerly a Judge of this Court and the Former Chairman of the Law Commission of India to accept the assignment and carry out the exercise. (e) The High Court of Delhi is directed to provide appropriate accommodation, preferably a court room, and the requisite secretarial staff for the purpose of valuation. The High Court shall facilitate the travelling of Justice P.V. Reddi from his place of residence to the Delhi High Court and provide a vehicle till he is in Delhi. (f) Justice Reddi is requested to commence the process on or before 10.01.2016. As the Delhi High Court has advertised for filling up rest of the vacancies, we would request Justice Reddi to make an effort to complete the valuation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks so that the advertised vacancies are in no way affected. (g) The fee payable to Justice P.V. Reddi shall be determined by this Court on the next date of hearing. (h) When we have said that the selected candidates whose answers script would be the parameter, it clearly conveys that selection of the selected candidates shall not be unsettled. The candidates who shall obtain the requisite marks in comparison to the 15 candidates shall be called for interview and in the ultimate eventuate, if they are selected, they would not be ranked senior to the candidates who have already been selected and appointed.” 3. In pursuance of our order, Justice P.V. Reddi, formerly a Judge of this Court and the former Chairman of the Law Commission of India, has submitted an interim report. Paragraph 5 of the said report reads as under:- “5. As a result of this exercise, the following 12 (twelve) candidates have got qualifying marks for being called for interview. S. No. in list of 100 Code No. Aggregate marks before and after re-valuation. 1. 581 431/449 2. 40 412/433 4. 488 408/425 5. Paragraph 5 of the said report reads as under:- “5. As a result of this exercise, the following 12 (twelve) candidates have got qualifying marks for being called for interview. S. No. in list of 100 Code No. Aggregate marks before and after re-valuation. 1. 581 431/449 2. 40 412/433 4. 488 408/425 5. 41 407/429 6. 154 407/427 8. 559 406/427 9. 440 403/428 11. 472 402/434 12. 607 399/425 14. 24 395/435 20. 632 392/427 92. 13(SC) 357/385 Their names are in Annexure I-A. 5.1 The serial numbers given above are as per the aggregate marks obtained originally. The Candidates who get qualified by reason of addition of marks fall within the first 20 places in the list of 100, excepting the SC candidate who occupied 92nd place. The highest number of marks added (i.e. 40 out of 850) is in respect of Sl. No.14 candidate (with code No.24) who gets qualified now. The addition of 40 marks represents 4.7% increase. For others, who have got qualified now, 17 to 35 marks have been added in the course of re-valuation. 5.2 The last candidate in the list of 100 has got aggregate marks of 354 as against the minimum prescribed aggregate of 425 marks, thereby falling short of 71 marks. With the addition of marks proposed, the said last candidate will be getting the aggregate marks of 359 which is far below the prescribed minimum. The aggregate marks obtained by 5 candidates above him/her i.e. from 99 to 95 are as follows: S. No. Code No. Aggregate marks before and after re-valuation. 99 625 355/373 98 423 355/371 97 204 355/358 96 139 355/364 95 296 356/373 It is noticed that even after the additions of marks, these last candidates figuring in the list of 100 are nowhere near the qualifying marks.” 4. Annexure I-A to the Report reflects the names, which reads as under:- Code No Name Rank (Sl. No.) in order of aggregate marks obtained before re-valuation. 581 Neha Priya 1 40 Nitish Gupta 2 488 Richa Sharma 4 41 Divya Malhotra 5 154 Mayank Mittal 6 559 Deepak Vats 8 440 Dhanshree Deka 9 472 Swati Gupta 11 607 Fahaduddin 12 24 Joshica Sood 14 639 Nishant Garg 20 13 (SC) Pragati 92 5. No.) in order of aggregate marks obtained before re-valuation. 581 Neha Priya 1 40 Nitish Gupta 2 488 Richa Sharma 4 41 Divya Malhotra 5 154 Mayank Mittal 6 559 Deepak Vats 8 440 Dhanshree Deka 9 472 Swati Gupta 11 607 Fahaduddin 12 24 Joshica Sood 14 639 Nishant Garg 20 13 (SC) Pragati 92 5. We have given the code number and their names as it is the admitted position at the Bar that the Code No.639 has been erroneously mentioned, which should have been 632. 6. The interim report of Justice P.V. Reddi is accepted. 7. Regard being had to the aforesaid report, we request the High Court of Delhi to hold the interview within four weeks. The Committee that had conducted the interview, is requested to conduct the interview of the aforesaid twelve candidates. The Chief Secretary and the other authority, who are supposed to participate in the interview, shall be guided about the dates fixed by the High Court and not take any kind of excuse. The candidates shall be intimated forthwith by all possible means. 8. It is submitted by Mr. A.D.N. Rao that in the earlier Selection Committee, nominee of the Lieutenant Governor was there, who was earlier the Law Secretary of the Delhi Government. In the meantime, she has become a District Judge. In view of the above said position, the Lieutenant Governor shall nominate someone else as a nominee so that the Selection Committee can meet. We request the Lieutenant Governor to nominate a suitable member within a week hence. 9. After conducting the interview, the results of the interview shall be filed before this Court by 25th April, 2016. 10. Let the matters be listed on 2nd May, 2016.