Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: 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