Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, SANJEEV NARULA
District & Sessions Judge (hqs. ) – Appellant
Versus
Narender Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. - C.M. APPL. 14690/2021 in Rev. P. No. 79/2021 in LPA No. 124/2019 (for condonation of delay in filing the review petition)
1. For the grounds and reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and delay of 2 days in filing of the review petition is condoned.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Rev. P. No. 72/2021 in LPA No. 123/2019 & Rev. P. No. 79/2021 in LPA No. 124/2019
3. Mr. Narender Kumar and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sangwan [hereinafter collectively, 'Review Petitioners/ Applicants'] seek review of common judgement dated 16th February, 2021 [hereinafter, 'impugned judgement'] whereby the appeals preferred by Respondent- District and Sessions Judge, were allowed and order of learned Single Judge dated 16th January, 20191 In W.P. (C) Nos. 3245/2012 and 3253/2012. re-evaluating Review Petitioners' typing sheets in examination for Lower Division Clerk ['LDC'], was set aside. Since the grounds of review are nearly identical, the petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order.
4. Mr. Pawan R. Upadhyay, counsel for Mr. Narender Kumar, and Mr. Ankur Chibber, counsel for Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sangwan, make following submissions:
4.1 There is
The importance of refraining from re-evaluating answer scripts and impinging on an academic evaluator's jurisdiction in the context of judicial review.
Judicial review allows for correction of computational errors in marking but not re-evaluation of exam criteria or assessment methodologies.
Courts should refrain from re-evaluating answer sheets or typewriting sheets and should presume the correctness of the criteria applied by the examining authority. The absence of any rule or procedur....
Judicial review cannot extend to the re-evaluation of examination results; courts must respect the evaluators' judgments when properly conducted without clear procedural violations.
Judicial interference in examination results is limited to rare situations where a clear material error is established; courts should not reassess answers without evident justification.
Limited scope for judicial interference in examination results and the presumption of correctness of key answers.
The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a statute, rule, or regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet, the court may not permit re-evaluati....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
