How to prepare for Judicial Services Examination: Fundamental Principles

-







I take pleasure in writing how to crack Judicial Service Examination of Any State: my personal view and advise are as follows:-
  • Thorough with Bare Acts many candidates who have qualified Judicial Services Examination or have sat for the Examination consider the key to crack the Preliminary Examination is to be thorough with the Bare Acts of the related subjects. The candidate for Judiciary examination must be thorough with section. Many a times, Judiciary examination of some States also ask the Section or Article number pertaining to related statutory provision. Such questions are commonly asked from the Indian Contract Act.
  • GK  and Current Affairs is one of the important sections in Judicial Service Examination. One of the best way to prepare for general awareness and G.K. is to read newspaper daily. 
  • Latest Judgments and Amendments in Law candidate for a sincere preparation of Judiciary apart from being glued to the book shall also be aware of what is happening around. The candidate should read the latest and important judgments and what important observation/ verdict was made in the case.
  • Solvig Previous Year Question Papers is one of the best way to be aware of the type of questions asked. Many publications provide subject-wise previous year question papers.
  • Preparingaring Self Notes in this world of cyberspace and technology, students hardly these days prepare notes. However, preparing notes will give methodical and comprehensive knowledge of the legal topic. Moreover, preparing notes gives self-confidence and can also be preserved for future use, reference and most important for last minute revision. Personally I have always relied on notes to prepare for any examination and have never regretted this method as time-consuming and the same has always fetched good result.
  • Time Management and Syllabus- Last but not the least time management is an extremely essential ingredient to prepare for the examination. Judicial examination of every State has a different syllabus. It is very important to be aware of the syllabus of the State for which you are appearing. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more