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.