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.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral):--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of directions to the respondent to re-evaluate and re-check the answer sheet of the petitioner and to re-compute the eligibility/ merit list of the Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer (Department) Examination, 2019. Petitioner also prays for an interim order to allow him to appear for the English typing test to be held on 14th March, 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was recruited on the rolls of respondent establishment as process server and is presently posted with the Delhi High Court Establishment. He further states that the petitioner appeared for the Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer (Department) Examination, 2019 and when he didn't qualify the same, he sought the answer sheet vide RTI application. He points out that the petitioner made a representation dated 1st February, 2021 citing five questions (being question nos. 3, 5, 9, 10 and 25) that had been erroneously marked wrong, but the same have been rejected vide memorandum dated 1st March, 2021.

4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner required minimum twenty marks in both Part A and Part B to qualify for English Typing Test. Petitioner has admittedly received sixteen out of fifty marks in Part A and thirty four out of fifty marks in Part B. Petitioner needs four more marks to qualify in Part A.

5. This Court has perused the chart showing the details of the questions in which revaluation has been sought.

6. In our view, the petitioner's answers to question nos. two, four and five are either incorrect or not the most appropriate. The relevant portion of the chart showing question nos. two, four and five as well as petitioner's answers are reproduced herein below:-

7. In our view, the correct/most appropriate answers to question nos. two, four and five are- `No', `Competence' and `to' respectively.

8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that it would be futile to undertake a revaluation exercise.

9. In fact the Supreme Court in The Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357, while discussing the law regarding judicial interference with the results of an examination has held as under:-

"18. A complete hands-off or no-interference approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713] nor has it been suggested in any other decision of this Court--the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent.

xxx xxx xxx

30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute