Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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