Monika v. High Court of Delhi & Anr.

1. General knowledge and English 150 108

2. Law-I 200 107

3. Law-II 200 132

4. Law-III 200 75 TOTAL 750 422”

15. The petitioner had secured an aggregate of 422 marks out of 750 marks in the DHJS Mains Examination. Although, she had secured more than 50% marks in the aggregate, she was not successful in clearing the DHJS Mains Examination as her marks in Law Paper III were less than 45% - the qualifying threshold.

16. On 06.01.2024, the petitioner addressed a representation to the and re-checked by some independent faculty at the earliest and the marks of the shortlisted candidates who are due to appear for the interview rounds, be disclosed prior to commencement of the viva voce.

17. Ms Haripriya Padmanabhan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that it was apparent that there was a systemic error in the marking of Law Paper III as only thirteen candidates had secured the minimum qualifying marks or more, in the said paper. She referred to the results of the DHJS Mains Examination, as declared by the Delhi High Court, and submitted that a large number of candidates who had performed exceedingly well in other papers had failed to secure the requisite marks in Law Paper III. She submitted that only eleven candidates out of seventyeight candidates who had appeared in the DHJS (Written) Mains Examination have been short-listed for viva voce. She submitted that the number of candidates short-listed for the interview were less than the number of vacancies as advertised. She contended that in the given circumstances, denial of re-evaluation of examination papers works to the prejudice of deserving candidates.

18. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sahiti and Ors. v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors.1, High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors.2, State of Orissa & Ors. v. Prajanaparamita Samantra & Ors.3, Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.4, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. High Court of Delhi[5] and on the strength of the said decisions submitted that there can be a variety of situations wherein re-evaluation is called for.

19. The petitioner also contends that Paragraph XII of the Appendix to the Rules is ultra-vires of the Constitution of India as it restricts the petitioner’s freedom of trade and profession, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner denial of her request for revaluation of Law Paper III, in the given facts, effectively denies her the opportunity to compete for appointment to the DHJS. She submits that Paragraph XII also violates Article 14 of the Constitution because it is arbitrary and unjust. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that an absolute prohibition of re-evaluation shuts out the chance of deserving candidates recourse against unfair marking.

20. Ms Beenashaw, learned counsel appearing for the Delhi High Court submitted that the petitioner had appeared as a general category candidate and only three vacancies were advertised under the general category. She

RAWAL submitted that the candidates of the general category that had qualified the DHJS Mains Examination were thrice the number of vacancies. She submitted that the vacancies that had been reserved for SC and ST candidates would not be filled as there was no candidate belonging to the ST category that had cleared the examination and only two candidates from the SC category had cleared the DHJS Mains Examination. She submitted that there would be no impediment in filling up all the vacancies of the general category candidates as a sufficient number of candidates had qualified the DHJS Examination.

REASONS AND CONCLUSION

21. Paragraph XII of the Appendix to the Rules which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition reads as under: “XII RE-EVALUATION OF ANSWER SHEETS There shall be no re-evaluation of answer sheets in respect of Preliminary Examination and Mains Examination. No request for re-evaluation of answer sheets shall be entertained and the same shall be liable to be rejected without any notice to the candidates.”

22. The petitioner’s contention that the said Rule is violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is without merit. The denial of revaluation does not in any manner impose an unreasonable restriction on the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The contention that the same is arbitrary or unreasonable is also ill founded. Clearly, the said Rule does not violate the equal protection clause.

23. The aforesaid question is not res integra. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Seth & Ors.[6] some of the examinees had successfully challenged the validity of the relevant Regulations inter alia permitting reverification but not re-evaluation. The High Court allowed their representation and held that the examinees were entitled to seek disclosure, inspection and re-evaluation of the answer sheets. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education successfully appealed the said decision and the judgment passed by the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:

24. In H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.7, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Seth & Ors[6]. and held as under:

25. The petitioner’s challenge to Paragraph XII of the Appendix to the Rules must fail for yet another reason. The petitioner having participated in the examination conducted in terms of the Appendix to the Rules cannot, after being unsuccessful, challenge the same. It is settled law that a candidate who willingly participated in a selection process cannot challenge the same after being unsuccessful. In Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.8, the Supreme Court observed that “…It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of

26. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar[9] has referred several earlier decisions and reiterated the above principle. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:

27. In Anupal Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors.10, the Supreme Court held that the candidates who had participated in the selection process could not challenge the Office Memorandum after they were unsuccessful.

28. In view of the above, the petitioner’s challenge to Paragraph XII of the Appendix to the Rules is rejected.

29. The next question to be examined is whether in the given facts, directions are required to be issued to the Delhi High Court to re-evaluate the examination papers.

30. The learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in her submission that in exceptional circumstances, where it is apparent that the selection process

31. In Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.4, a decision that was relied upon by the petitioner, the Supreme Court had observed as under: “30.[2] If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;”

32. It is apparent from the above that the Courts may direct re-evaluation of examination papers in rare and exceptional cases where it is found that a material error has been committed. It is important to note that such a reevaluation would be ordered where the relevant Rules / statutes do not proscribe the same.

33. In High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Ors.[2] the Supreme Court referred to the earlier decision in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[4] and reiterated that in rare and exceptional cases a writ court could exercise its constitutional powers even when there was no provision for re-evaluation.

34. In cases, where the court finds that there is a systemic flaw in the process of evaluation or if it is found that there is a manifest error in evaluation, the courts may in exceptional circumstances direct re-evaluation RAWAL or further scrutiny if there is no rule prohibiting re-evaluation. In the given facts, we find no such error.

35. The petitioner’s case rests solely on the ground that a large number of candidates have not qualified Law Paper III. According to the petitioner, all candidates have been awarded low marks in the said paper. It is apparent from the result that only thirteen out of seventy-eight candidates have secured 45% or more marks in Law Paper III. Thus, it could be reasonably inferred that Law Paper III was a tough question paper, or the evaluation of the said answer sheets was strict, or both. However, the fact that the examinees have not performed well in this paper does not mean that there has been any systemic error in the evaluation process. It is material to note that Law Paper III was marked by a single examiner. This was to obviate, the variation on account of different standards and approaches of different examiner, in the subjective evaluation of answer sheets.

36. It is material to note that in terms of Rule 7C of Part-II of the Instructions accompanying the advertisement for appointment, the maximum number of candidates to be shortlisted for viva voce could not exceed three times the number of vacancies in each category. In the present case, the maximum number of candidates in the general category that could be called for via voce have qualified the DHJS Mains Examination.

37. In the given facts, the petitioner’s prayer that her answer sheet for Law Paper III be re-evaluated is liable to be rejected for two reasons. First, that in terms of Paragraph XII of Appendix to the Rules, re-evaluation of RAWAL answer sheets is prohibited. And second, that we do not find any flaw or infirmity in the evaluation process.

38. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J FEBRUARY 01, 2024 RK/gsr RAWAL