Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Monika - Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi At New Delhi Through The Registrar General & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1471 of 2024 and CM Nos.6066 of 2024 & 6067 of 2024
Decided On : 01-02-2024
RE-EVALUATION - DHJS Mains Examination - [Rule 7C of the Rules, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Seth & Ors., (1984) 4 SCC 27, H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., (2010) 6 SCC 759, Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Ors., Anupal Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 173] - The court discussed the challenge to Paragraph XII of the Appendix to the Rules, which prohibits re-evaluation of answer sheets, and rejected the petitioner's contention that it violated Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court cited precedents to support the view that 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. The court also emphasized that a candidate who willingly participated in a selection process cannot challenge the same after being unsuccessful. The court further highlighted that re-evaluation of examination papers may be directed in rare and exceptional cases where a material error has been committed, and only if the relevant Rules/statutes do not proscribe the same. In the present case, the court found no systemic flaw in the evaluation process and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged Paragraph XII of the Appendix to the Rules, seeking re-evaluation of her answer sheets in Law Paper III of the DHJS Mains Examination after failing to qualify despite securing an aggregate of 422 marks out of 750 marks.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's challenge to Paragraph XII of the Appendix to the Rules, citing precedents to support the view that 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. The court also emphasized that a candidate who willingly participated in a selection process cannot challenge the same after being unsuccessful. The court further highlighted that re-evaluation of examination papers may be directed in rare and exceptional cases where a material error has been committed, and only if the relevant Rules/statutes do not proscribe the same. In the present case, the court found no systemic flaw in the evaluation process and dismissed the petition.
Issues: Challenge to Paragraph XII of the Appendix to the Rules, seeking re-evaluation of answer sheets in Law Paper III of the DHJS Mains Examination, and alleged violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 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. A candidate who willingly participated in a selection process cannot challenge the same after being unsuccessful. Re-evaluation of examination papers may be directed in rare and exceptional cases where a material error has been committed, and only if the relevant Rules/statutes do not proscribe the same.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning Paragraph XII of the Appendix to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (hereafter `the Rules'). The petitioner also prays that directions be issued to respondent no.1 (hereafter `the Delhi High Court') to form an independent committee for reevaluation of the petitioner's answer-sheets in respect of Law-III examination paper, of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Mains Examination (Written), 2023 (hereafter `DHJS Mains Examination').
2. The petitioner had secured an aggregate of 422 marks out of a maximum of 750 marks in the DHJS Mains Examination. This is significantly higher than the qualifying threshold of 50%. However, the petitioner was not successful in clearing the examination as she was awarded 75 marks out of a maximum of 200 marks in Law Paper III, which is 15 marks short of the qualifying cut of 45%.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved as she has not qualified the DHJS Mains Examination despite performing well in three papers. It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioner seeks a re-evaluation of her answer sheets in Law Paper III. She also challenges the Rules to the extent that it provides that no request for re-evaluation of answer sheets would be entertained.
4. The Rules were notified on 27.08.1970 and came into effect from the date of publication in the Daily Gazette. The Rules have been amended from time to time. In terms of Rule 7C of the Rules, the High Court is required to hold a written examination(s) and viva voce test in the manner as prescribed in the Appendix to the Rules for the purposes of selection of candidates for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (hereafter `DHJS') by direct recruitment.
5. The Appendix to the Rules provides that the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination (hereafter `DHJS Examination') would be held in three successive stages. The first being the DHJS Preliminary Examination - an objective type examination with 25% negative marking - as a screening test of qualifying nature. Those candidates qualifying the DHJS Preliminary Examination would be admitted to the DHJS Mains Examination. And, those candidates that qualify the DHJS Mains Examination would be called for the third stage of viva voce.
6. Paragraph III of the Appendix to the Rules provides that the minimum qualifying marks for preliminary examination of general category candidates is 50% and those for the reserved categories is 45%. As stated above, those qualifying the DHJS Preliminary Examination would be admitted to the DHJS Mains Examination. The candidates would be selected on the order of merit based on their aggregate marks in the DHJS Mains Examination and viva voce.
7. The DHJS Mains Examination comprises of four papers. The aggregate maximum marks for the four papers is 750 marks. The minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the general category candidates is 45% in each paper and 50% of the aggregate marks. The brief description of the said papers, as set out in the Appendix to the Rules, is set out below:
"MAIN (WRITTEN) EXAMINATION
| Papers | Description | Max Marks |
| Paper-I | General Knowledge & Language - This is to test the candidate's knowledge of current affairs etc. and power of expression in English. Credit will be given both for substance and expression. Conversely deduction will be made for bad expression, faults of grammar and misuse of words etc. | 150 |
| Paper-II | Law - I - Constitution of India, Code of Civil Procedure, Indian Evidence Act, Limitation Act, Registration Act and such other subjects as may be specified by the High Court from time to time. | 200 |
| Paper-III | Law - II - Transfer of Property Act, Indian Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Partnership Act, specific Relief Act, Arbitration Law, Personal Law and such other subjects as may be specified by the High court from time to time | 200 |
| Paper-IV | Law - III - Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian |
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....
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.
Supreme Court did not give a blanket order for allowing any candidate to approach the Court for re-evaluation at any point of time and restricted relief to those candidates who had approached the Cou....
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
