Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIBHU BAKHRU, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Monika – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi At New Delhi Through The Registrar General – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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
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....
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.
Point of Law : if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-ev....
Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and tha....
The court established that 're-checking' of examination papers does not equate to 're-evaluation', clarifying that procedural rules govern the reevaluation process to maintain the integrity of select....
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
Listen Article