Limited scope of judicial review in examination and evaluation of answer sheets, and the absence of provision for re-evaluation.

Headnote:
Evaluation - Examination - The court declined to direct re-evaluation of answer sheets in a subjective type examination, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in matters of examination and evaluation of answer sheets. The court highlighted the absence of provision for re-evaluation and cited precedents to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the rejection of their representations seeking re-evaluation of their answer sheets in the Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Court Master Examination-2022 conducted by the respondents. They alleged discrepancies in the evaluation of their answer sheets and sought promotion to the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Court Master as a consequential relief.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the scope of judicial review in matters of examination and evaluation of answer sheets is limited. It emphasized that re-evaluation of answer sheets is not permissible in the absence of provision for the same and cited precedents to support its decision. The court dismissed the petitions, declining to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheets.
Issues: Challenge to rejection of representations seeking re-evaluation of answer sheets, alleged discrepancies in the evaluation of answer sheets, and seeking promotion to the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Court Master as a consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in matters of examination and evaluation of answer sheets, highlighting the absence of provision for re-evaluation and citing precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the court declined to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheets.

JUDGEMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, impugning Memorandums, both dated 11.05.2023, issued by respondent no. 3 [the Assistant Registrar (Spl./Exam. Cell except Page 2 of 15 DHJS/DJS), High Court of Delhi] whereby the representations made by the petitioners seeking re-evaluation of their answer sheets submitted in the Administrative Officer (Judicial)/ Court Master (Departmental) Examination-2022 conducted by the respondents, were rejected. The said Memorandums are hereafter also referred to as the impugned memorandums.

FACTUAL CONTEXT

2. On 12.05.2022, a notice inviting applications for filling up six existing vacancies for the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Court Master (hereafter notice dated 12.05.2022) was issued by respondent no. 2 [the Joint Registrar (Spl./Exam. Cell except DHJS/DJS), High Court of Delhi]. The candidates eligible for appointment to the said post, in terms of Item Nos. 9A and 10 of Schedule II (A) of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, were invited to submit their applications online from 19.05.2022 onwards. The last date for applying, as stipulated in the notice dated 12.05.2022, was 01.06.2022.

3. The Administrative Officer (Judicial)/ Court Master (Departmental) Examination-2022 (hereafter the Examination) was to be conducted in two successive stages. The first stage being the written examination stage, was to be conducted in two parts, Written Paper- I and Written Paper- II. Candidates securing a minimum of 50% marks in Written Paper- I and Written Paper- II each, which were conducted Page 3 of 15 on 09.07.2022 and 17.07.2022 respectively, were eligible to appear for the next stage of the Examination being the interview/viva-voce.

4. The result of the first stage of the Examination was declared on 25.11.2022 and the petitioners qualified the same. Thus, the petitioners were admitted to participate in the interview. The interview for both the petitioners was conducted on 17.12.2022. On 22.12.2022, respondent no.1 [the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi] declared the final result of the Examination.

5. The aggregate marks awarded to the candidates, who were considered for appointment, were the sum of marks obtained by them in Written Paper-I, Written Paper-II and the interview/viva-voce.

Whereas, Ms. Pooja Sharma [petitioner in W.P.(C) 455/2024] scored an aggregate of 145.5 marks out of the maximum of 230 marks, Mr. Pankaj Dhiman [petitioner in W.P. (C) 456/2024] scored an aggregate of 144 marks out of the maximum of 230 marks.

6. The candidates were selected in the order of their merit. Amongst the candidates selected for appointment, the candidate scoring the least marks scored aggregate marks of 145.5 out of the maximum of 230 marks.

7. Despite having scored marks equal to that of the last selected candidate, Ms. Pooja Sharma [petitioner in W.P.(C) 455/2024] was not recommended for appointment as in case of a tie, the candidate with higher seniority was required to be recommended for appointment. This Page 4 of 15 rule was mentioned in unambiguous terms in the notice dated 12.05.2022.

8. Mr. Pankaj Dhiman [petitioner in W.P. (C) 456/2024] was not recommended for appointment despite having passed the Examination as he had scored 1.5 marks less than the marks secured by the candidate lowest in the order of merit of selected candidates.

9. The petitioners being aggrieved by the final result declared on 22.12.2022, applied for copies of their answer sheets of the Written Papers-I and II by filing applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioners also made representations, both dated 03.03.2023, to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi challenging the scrutiny of their answer sheets and sought directions for re-evaluation/ re-examination of their answer sheets. They claimed that their answer sheets were incorrect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document