In the absence of specific provisions in the governing statute, rules, or regulations, an examinee cannot claim re-evaluation of answer scripts as a matter of right. Re-evaluation should only be permitted in rare and exceptional cases and should not be actuated by mala fide considerations or result in arbitrariness.

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. Vide notification No.264-A dated 25-06-2010, issued by the respondent, applications came to be invited to fill up 11 posts of District Judges by direct recruitment. The petitioner submitted application in the prescribed format and was permitted to participate in the selection process. The petitioner was found eligible by the respondent to participate in the written examination, result whereof was declared in the year 2011. The petitioner was indicated at serial no.95 of the result sheet and his total merit in paper-I and paper-II was indicated as 34 ½. He obtained 25 ½ marks in paper-I and 09 marks in paper-II. Since he could not reach the benchmark as fixed in the selection criteria, as such, he was not invited for viva voce and further process of selection. The candidates, who had cleared the benchmark in the written examination, were subsequently invited for viva voce and selection list was accordingly prepared. It is stated that the selection process, which was initiated on 25-06-2010, culminated on 04-08-2011 with appointment of only one candidate, namely, Sh. Shahzad Azim as District Judge, who was appointed vide impugned order no.266-A of 2011.

2. The petitioner, who had failed to qualify the written examination, appears to have approached the respondent with representation highlighting his dissatisfaction with the manner in which his answer scripts had been evaluated by the examiners. The petitioner appears to have moved an application before the Registrar General of this Court for re-checking/re-evaluation of his answer scripts. Petitioner claims that when he did not get any response from the respondent, he moved an application under the J&K Right to Information Act, 2009 on 10-12-2015 before the respondent. In response to the aforesaid application, the petitioner was permitted to inspect and obtain copy of the answer scripts after filing proper application. The petitioner after inspecting and getting the answer scripts felt dissatisfied with the manner in which his answer scripts had been evaluated by the examiners and, therefore, filed the instant petition claiming inter alia the following reliefs:-

(I) Mandamus to the respondent for re-evaluation and re-checking of the answer scripts of the petitioner.

(II) Mandamus to the respondent to consider his appointment against the post of District Judge.

3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the respondent has filed reply affidavit. The maintainability of the writ petition has been objected inter alia on the ground that the writ petition, challenging the selection of District Judge by direct recruitment made in the year 2011, has been challenged by the petitioner in the year 2017, and, therefore, the writ petition is hit by delay and latches and also that the petitioner having participated in the selection process with his eyes wide open is estopped in law to turn around and challenge the selection only after finding the results were not palatable to him. Apart from aforesaid preliminary objections raised by the respondent, the writ petition is contested on merits as well. A very specific and categoric plea has been raised by the respondent that in absence of any specific provision in the statute, rules and regulations providing for re-evaluation and re-checking, a candidate has no right to claim it and, therefore, no mandamus would lie to direct the respondent to re-evaluate the answer scripts.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that the writ petition primarily raises the following questions for determination.

(a) Whether re-evaluation/re-assessment/re-checking/re-examination of answer scripts is permissible in the absence of any provision in the statute governing such examinations?

(b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, a case for re-evaluation/re-examination of answer scripts is made out?

(c) Whether in the absence of selected/appointed candidates being party to the writ petition