Sanjeev Kumar Kulshrestha v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 10 Nov 2022 · 2022:DHC:4880-DB
Sanjeev Sachdeva; Tushar Rao Gedela
W.P.(C) 4025/2022
2022:DHC:4880-DB
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging examination marking errors as the alleged mistakes did not affect the final result, rendering judicial intervention academic.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004880
WP(C) 4025/2022 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 10.11.2022
W.P.(C) 4025/2022
SH SANJEEV KUMAR KULSHRESTHA AND ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Dharmenda Vashishtha, Advocate
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms.Priya
Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT

1. The only submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that in the answer sheet of the Petitioner, the Examiner has incorrectly given him four marks for two wrong questions and has deducted four marks for two correct questions.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

2. Learned counsel submits that this shows that the Examiner was not well versed with the procedure to be followed in the Railway Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004880 WP(C) 4025/2022 2 Examination.

3. On a query to the learned counsel for the Petitioner as to whether there would be any difference to the result of the Petitioner in case marks that have been deducted for correct answers were granted, the response of learned counsel is that it will not make a difference because Petitioner has been awarded 4 marks for wrong answers and 4 marks have been wrongly deducted and the grant of 4 marks would be correspondingly reduced by 4 marks wrongly granted.

4. In view of the fact that any exercise by this Court would not benefit the Petitioner and the result of the Petitioner would not change, we are not inclined to entertain the challenge of the Petitioner to the impugned order as the exercise becomes purely academic.

5. In view of the above, we dispose of the petition without commenting upon the legal issues raised by the Petitioner, same are left open.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J NOVEMBER 10, 2022 ‘yg’