Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

PCS(JB) Exam - Re-checking is Not Synonymous with Revaluation - Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Revaluation of Answer Sheets – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court has dismissed a writ petition that sought the revaluation of answer sheets for the PCS (JB) 2022 examination for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate. The Court clarified that "re-checking is not synonymous and equivalent to revaluation," quoting from its own observations in the judgement.

The petition raised questions regarding the timing of re-checking and whether it should be synonymous with revaluation. The Court, in its judgement, stated that Clause 11 of the advertisement dated 06.09.2022 allows only for re-checking, not revaluation. "Re-checking pertains to retotalling of marks and ensuring all questions have been marked, whereas revaluation involves reassessment of answers," the Court observed.

The Court also addressed the timing of re-checking, emphasizing the need to maintain the "sanctity and impartiality of the selection process." The judgement rejected the argument that re-checking should be allowed immediately after the main written examination and before the viva-voce.

Another key point in the judgement was the Court's stance on the disclosure of marks. The Court upheld the practice of not disclosing marks obtained in the written examination until the final result is declared. "Disclosure prior to viva-voce could lead to bias and is not in the interest of transparency," the Court noted.

The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to assert that in the absence of any provision for revaluation in the Recruitment Rules, revaluation should not be directed. The judgement also cited Supreme Court views on the non-disclosure of marks before the viva-voce.

In its final decision, the Court found "no ground whatsoever which calls for interference" and dismissed the writ petition. The ruling is seen as setting a precedent for future cases involving the revaluation and re-checking of examination answer sheets.

The judgement was delivered by Judge Lisa Gill and Judge Ritu Tagore on September 28, 2023.                   Date of Decision: 28 September 2023 

Malwinder Singh and others vs Punjab Public Service Commission and others  

Latest Legal News