IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RENU RAMPAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv K. Choudhry and Ms. Sneha Jain, Advs
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Abhimanyun Kumar, Adv. for
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R
1. The petitioner had appeared in the written examination for grant of
registration as a Patent Agent. She was not declared qualified on the ground that the petitioner had secured less than 50% marks in the viva
voce part of the examination. Her case is that in two written papers she
secured 71% and 59% marks respectively and the aggregate in the written
examination is 65%. However in the viva voce exam she secured only 45
marks because of which she has been declared failed. It is the submission
of the petitioner that in view of the decision dated 28th February, 2012
in W.P.(C) No. 4376/2011 titled Ms. Anvita Singh v. UOI where that part
of the rule which prescribes minimum 50% qualifying marks in viva voce
has been struck down, she is entitled to get registration as a Patent
2. This Division Bench while striking down the aforesaid portion of
Rule 126 of the Patent Act, 1970, gave the following directions:-
?We are, therefore, of the opinion that prescribing minimum 50
per cent marks in the interview may not be
appropriate more so when the rule mandates securing 60 per cent marks in
aggregate in all three papers i.e. two written and one viva voce test.
This rule is therefore arbitrary and becomes violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution. To this extent namely prescribing minimum 50 per cent
marks in the viva voce is struck down. We, however, leave it to the rule
making authority to either give less weightage by prescribing lesser
minimum marks which should not be more than 25 per cent.?
3. We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the
matter necessitates amendment of the concerned rule and which aspect is
under consideration by the Ministry of Law.
4. In view thereof, we dispose of this writ petition with direction to
the respondent to carry out the suitable amendment, in terms of aforesaid
direction, within three months. The case of the petitioner shall
thereafter be considered in terms of the amended rule.
5. The writ petition is disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MAY 29, 2012