Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Prohibition on Re-Evaluation in Delhi Higher Judicial Examination: “No ‘Material Error’ Warranting Interference,” Says Bench

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the prohibition on re-evaluation of answer sheets in the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination. The judgment, passed by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, addressed the issue of whether re-evaluation could be allowed in exceptional cases, even if not expressly prohibited by rules.

The case in question, Civil Appeal No. Of 2023, arose from a Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3144 OF 2023 filed by the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, against the respondent, Ravinder Singh. Mr. Singh was a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination (Written), 2022, and had sought re-evaluation of his answer script for question No.9 of Law Paper-I. His request was turned down by a Committee of six Hon’ble Judges of the High Court.

In the impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2023, the High Court had directed the respondent’s answer to question No.9 for re-evaluation to be sent to any other examiner. However, the Supreme Court found no merit in the respondent’s claim that there was a “material error” in the evaluation that warranted interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Referring to Clause XII, Rule 7C of the Appendix to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, which expressly prohibits re-evaluation of answer sheets, the Court stated: “The specific case of the appellant herein is that the answer of the respondent to question No.9 of Law Paper-I is wrong in the light of Sections 134(2) of the Trademark Act, 1999. In view of the said position, it can also be said that there is no ‘material error’ requiring a re-evaluation, even if it is taken that despite Clause XII, Rule 7 of DHJS Rules, re-evaluation is permissible.”

The judgment further relied on the precedent set in Ran Vijay Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 357], which emphasized that re-evaluation cannot be ordered if a statute prohibits it. The Court clarified that re-evaluation may be allowed only in rare and exceptional cases where a material error has been demonstrated without any inferential process of reasoning.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2023 and dismissed the Writ Petition. The Court held that the prohibition on re-evaluation under the relevant rules remains valid, and there was no ground to interfere with the decision of the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi.

 

 Date of Decision: JULY 11, 2023

 REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI VS RAVINDER SINGH     

 

Similar News