Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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     

 

Latest Legal News