|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 3333/2012 RENU RAMPAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv K. Choudhry and Ms. Sneha Jain, Advs versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Abhimanyun Kumar, Adv. for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R 29.05.2012 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 Agent. 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 1/- 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 pp.. 2/- $ 15.
|
|