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.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.1 to re-evaluate her answer to the question 2(vii) of the Legal GK and English paper (Paper-I) for the Delhi Judicial Services Mains Examination 2022 (hereafter referred to as the "DJS Examination 2022") and award her additional two marks for the same. The petitioner prays for a consequential direction that her rank in the selection list dated 24th March, 2023 be settled in accordance with her enhanced score.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the contentious question in the mains examination was an objective True or False question, being Question 2(vii), of the Legal GK and English paper (Paper-I). He points out that the question 2(vii) was "Article 21A prohibits religious instructions or any worship in educational institutions maintained by the State." and the answer given by the petitioner was "False". He contends that though the correct answer to the question 2(vii) of the Legal GK and English paper (Paper-I) is "False", yet the petitioner has been given no marks for the said question.

3. He further states that the petitioner secured 93rd rank and is currently placed in the Waiting List at No.5 with an aggregate score of 662. He states that after the award of two marks on correct re-evaluation, petitioner's aggregate would become 664 and she would be placed at least in the Waiting List at serial no.1 and her chances of being selected would improve substantially.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-DHC submits that Rule 15 of Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 read with sub-clause (3) of Clause (D) of the Appendix specifically prohibits any re-evaluation of answer scripts.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-DHC states that the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered today in SLP (C) No. 3144/2023 being Registrar General, High Court of Delhi vs. Ravinder Singh has held that in view of a similar prohibition contained in Clause XII of Rule 7 of DHJS Rules for re-evaluation and also in view of fact that there was no `material error' in the evaluation warranting an interference with the decision, no reevaluation should have been ordered by the High Court.

6. In any event, he states that the respondent had undertaken an exercise of verifying the answer of the four candidates above the petitioner in the waiting list (candidates placed at serial nos.1 to 4 of the waiting list of General Category) to the said question and it has been found that all the four candidates above the petitioner in the waiting list have also answered Question 2(vii) of the General Legal Knowledge and Language Paper as `False'. Therefore, according to him, in case of a re-evaluation, two additional marks have to be awarded to the four candidates above the petitioner in the waiting list also. Consequently, he states that the position of the petitioner in the merit list would remain unchanged.

7. He further states that the respondent had carried out the exercise of reevaluation in respect of the candidates who had secured less than 670 marks because even if the marks of the candidates who have secured 670 or more are reduced by two, their total marks will still come to 668 or more, which is more than the marks scored by the petitioner even after awarding her two additional marks, which will be 664.

8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the constitutional power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by any Rule. He further submits that this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 can re-evaluate the answer sheet, as the candidate despite having given correct answer has been given no marks. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 663, wherein it has been held as under:

"20. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to