Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1472 of 2023 & CM APPL. 5510 of 2023
Decided On : 08-02-2023
Re-evaluation - Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination - Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 - No re-evaluation of answer sheets in respect of Preliminary Examination and Mains Examination - No request for re-evaluation of answer sheets shall be entertained and the same shall be liable to be rejected without any notice to the candidates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought re-evaluation of his answer sheet in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (Mains) Examination, 2022, after failing to meet the qualifying criteria by 0.5 marks in Paper-I. Despite previous rejections, the petitioner approached the court again, citing a similar case where re-evaluation was ordered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicable rule expressly proscribes re-evaluation of answer sheets and no material error warranting re-evaluation was disclosed. The court also noted that the petitioner's reliance on a previous order was not authoritative and that the petitioner was precluded from re-agitating the matter as the Supreme Court had already dismissed a similar petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's request for re-evaluation of his answer sheet in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (Mains) Examination, 2022, should be granted despite the applicable rule expressly prohibiting re-evaluation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the express prohibition of re-evaluation of answer sheets in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, and the lack of any material error warranting re-evaluation. The court also considered the petitioner's preclusion from re-agitating the matter due to the dismissal of a similar petition by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, denying the petitioner's request for re-evaluation of his answer sheet in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (Mains) Examination, 2022.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the respondent be directed to re-evaluate the petitioner's answer sheet of Paper-I in General Knowledge and Language of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (Mains) Examination, 2022.
2. The Establishment of this Court had issued an advertisement on 23.02.2022 inviting online applications for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination-2022, for filling up forty-five vacancies/anticipated vacancies (including thirty-two vacancies in the General category) in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination-2022.
3. The Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination-2022 examination consisted of three successive stages. The first being an objective examination (preliminary). Those qualifying the preliminary examination would be admitted to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (Mains) Examination 2022, and those who qualified the said examination would be eligible to appear for an interview and viva-voce.
4. The petitioner had qualified the preliminary examination but was unsuccessful in clearing the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (Mains) Examination 2022, which required the petitioner to obtain at least 45% marks in each paper and 50% marks in aggregate.
5. Whilst the petitioner's aggregate marks were in excess of 50%, his marks in Paper-I (General Knowledge and Language), were below the threshold by 0.5 marks. He had scored 67 marks out of a maximum of 150 marks, whereas he required 67.5 marks to meet the threshold qualifying criteria of 45%.
6. In the given circumstances, being aggrieved by the results, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [W.P.(C) 739/2022 captioned Anil Kumar v. High Court of Delhi]. It is relevant to note that one of the grounds urged by the petitioner was that the marks awarded in Paper-I (General Knowledge and Language), required moderation. The petitioner claimed that he was expecting 79 marks in Paper-I but had been awarded 67 marks. Accordingly, he sought that the answer sheet be re-evaluated.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accede to the said prayer and rejected the writ petition by an order dated 16.09.2022.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.(C) 14252/2022 captioned Anil Kumar v. High Court of Delhi, seeking that the marks awarded to him ought to be rounded off. It is the petitioner's case that if his marks were rounded off, then he would meet the threshold criteria. The said petition was dismissed by this Court as this Court found that the petitioner's request for rounding off would run in teeth of Paragraph XIII of Appendix to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, which expressly proscribes rounding off of marks.
9. Notwithstanding that the petitioner's prayers for re- evaluation and for enhancement of his marks by rounding off were rejected, the Establishment of this Court considered the hardship faced by the petitioner and two other candidates, who had similarly not qualified the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (Mains) Examination for want of a single mark (or less) and decided to award 0.5 mark in General Knowledge in Paper-I and one mark in Law Paper-III to all candidates who had appeared in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (Mains) Examination, 2022.
10. By virtue of the said concession, the petitioner qualified for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (Mains) Examination and was admitted to viva-voce.
11. The Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination-2022 results were declared on 10.11.2022. The petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 40 in the merit list.
12. Given that the number of vacancies are thirty-two (including two anticipated vacancies in the General category), the petitioner has not been selected for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is particularly dissatisfied by the marking done in Question No.2, where he has b
The court emphasized the prohibition of re-evaluation of answer sheets as per the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, and highlighted the lack of material error warranting re-evaluation. The d....
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....
Absolute prohibition against re-evaluation in the rules prevails, and candidates cannot seek re-evaluation contrary to the rules after participating in the selection process.
The absence of a provision for re-evaluation in the Rules cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. Re-evaluation of ex....
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
