Important Point – A candidate would stand estopped from challenging selection process as well as examination after having participated therein.

Gita Mittal, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner contending that in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (i) of Rule 5 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Supreme Court has framed regulations for conducting the examination for being placed as Advocate on Record (“AOR” hereafter). It is contended that these regulations do not contain any provision for rectifying errors, if any, occurring after evaluation of the answer sheets by examiners; that they do not provide for any standard method for evaluation of the answer sheets as is followed in various national and state level examinations (for instance, examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission or State Public Service Commission) and as such they are arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, inequitable and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that with regard to the AOR Examination, 2016 in which the petitioner participated, the respondents were required to get re-evaluated the answer sheets of Paper-I (Practice & Procedure of the Supreme Court) as well as Paper-III (Advocacy & Professional Ethics) by a Senior Advocate who was not an evaluator of the AOR Examination, 2016.

2. Premised on the above, the writ petitioner makes the following prayers in the writ petition :

“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Regulation 12 of the Regulations Regarding Advocates-on-Record Examination, 2013 which bars re-evaluation of answer sheets as arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, inequitable and violative of Articles 14.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Regulation 12 of the Regulations Regarding Advocates-on-Record Examination, 2013 be so read as to enable re-evaluation of answer sheets by an expert or body of expert who was not a member of the Board of Examiners in the year of conduct of the examination.

c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Regulation 11(iv) of the Regulations Regarding Advocates-on-Record Examination, 2013 which bars a candidate from availing more than 5 chances at the AOR Examination as arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, inequitable and violative of Articles 14;

d. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Regulation 11(iv) of the Regulations Regarding Advocates-on-Record Examination, 2013 which equates appearance in any one of the papers of the AOR examination for a candidate who comes within Regulation 11(i) or Regulation (ii) as a chance as arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, inequitable and violative of Articles 14;

e. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Regulation 11(iv) of the Regulations Regarding Advocates-on-Record Examination , 2013 be so read as to exclude appearance in any one of the papers of the AOR examination for a candidate who comes within Regulation 11(i) or Regulation 11(ii) as a chance;

f. Issuance of appropriate writ/direction/orders on the Respondents to revaluate the Petitioner’s AOR Exam 2016 answer sheets of Paper I (Supreme Court Practice and Procedure) and Paper III (Professional Ethics) by a Senior Advocate who was not an evaluator in the AOR Examination 2016, in light of the apparent faulty evaluation by the Examiners of the said papers;

g. Issuance of appropriate writ/direction/orders on the Respondents declaring that the Petitioner as having availed of only 3 out of 5 chances in the AOR Examination treating his appearance in only one paper in the AOR Examination 2011 in terms of Regulation 11(i) and in the AOR Examination 2017 in terms of Regulation 11(ii) as not a chance/attempt but merging with the AOR Examination 2010 and 2016 respectively;

h. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent no.1 to incorporate in the Regulations Regarding Advocates-on-Record Examination, 2013 a minimum objective standard to be adopted