Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Judgement reserved on: 22.12.2021
Judgement pronounced on: 03.03.2022
NIJESH KUMAR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Hariharan and Ms. Jagriti, Advs. alongwith petitioner in person.
Through: Ms. Padmapriya, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH TALWANT SINGH, J.:
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent i.e., the Registrar, Delhi High Court to reevaluate the answer sheets of written test for the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Court Master Examination, 2021 and also to quash the Memorandum No. 172/EC-4/Exams/DHC dated 11.11.2021. 2022:DHC:828-DB
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is working as Senior Judicial Assistant and, on completion of the required number of years and after fulfilling the requisite criteria, he falls within the consideration zone for the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Court Master through Departmental Examination.
3. Online applications were called for filling up 18 vacancies to the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Court Master vide vacancy notice dated 22.02.2021 and he applied for the said post, along with other court officials qualified to apply. The examination for the subject post of Administrative Officers (Judicial)/Court Master under 65% test quota consists of Written Paper- I and Written Paper-II, and the candidates who would secure 50% marks in each paper, i.e., Written Paper-I and Written Paper-II would be called for interview. The final list/merit list would be prepared by adding the marks secured in both the papers, as well as in the interview, and the candidates would be recommended to be appointed for the post of Administrative Officers (Judicial)/Court Master.
4. Both the written papers were of 100 marks each. The syllabus for Written Paper-I was consisting of High Court Rules and Orders Vol. V, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, Delhi High Court (Right to information) Rules, 2006; Notification/Practice Directions issued in respect thereof; and Right to Information Act, 2005 and Practice Directions and/or Rules issued by the Delhi High Court on different subjects including Electronic Filing (e-filing), Issuance of Summons/Notices through Speed Post; Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, and for Written Paper-II, the syllabus was Indian Limitation Act, 1963, Court Fees Act, 1870, Civil Procedure Code Part VII and Part VIII, Code of Criminal Procedure (certain sections), and Constitution of India (certain parts), etc.
5. The petitioner appeared for the written examination of both the papers and obtained the following marks: Paper I- 50.50 Paper II- 66.50
6. The petitioner was called for interview on 07.08.2021. The final result was declared on12.08.2021. The petitioner was allotted 25 marks in the interview, and his aggregate total became 142 marks.
7. After the final result, the petitioner moved a representation dated 23.08.2021 seeking re-evaluation of certain questions in the written test for Paper-I and Paper-II on the ground that, allocation of marks for certain answers by the Examiner was not correct and certain questions were not in accordance with the specific Rules provided under the respective Rules and Orders or question itself was wrong. Moreover, in one case, the Answer Key did not pertain to the question so asked.
8. The objection was raised by the petitioner in respect of 15 questions and he had sought enhancement of marks in the said representation. The petitioner received Memorandum No. 172/EC-4/Exams/DHC dated 11.11.2021, whereby he was informed that his representation was considered and rejected by the Competent Authority and several reasons were given for rejection of the same.
9. In brief, the reasons given for the rejection of the representation are that, the petitioner had got the answer sheets soon after the declaration of results of written test and much before the interview but the petitioner did not challenge the evaluation; once he was not recommended for appointment, he filed the representation; the petitioner was satisfied with his marks so did not challenge the same at appropriate stage; there is no provision of re-checking/re-evaluation of answer sheets in the Delhi High Court (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1972; reliance placed by the petitioner on the cases of other court officials was of no help as their cases are distinguishable on facts; the grant of zero marks in respect of answers of the questions of which re-valuation has been sought is justified on the basis of the Answer Key provided by the Examiner; all the 18 vacancies of AOJ/ Court Master have already been filled and since the petitioner could not secure position in the merit list of 18 recommended candidates, he has filed the representation without any rhyme and reason.
10. The petitioner also obtained copy of the Answer Key, as was supplied to his co-applicant, under RTI. The same has also been placed on record. The petitioner has challenged the said rejection order dated 11.11.2021by filing the present writ petition on the grounds that, the impugned Memorandum dated 11.11.2021 deserves to be quashed for being unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, irrational and purely based on technicalities; it is a non-reasoned order; the authorities failed to appreciate that no challenge could have been raised by the petitioner before interview as it would have been premature; since the petitioner had qualified the written examinations, there was no occasion to challenge the same; if the petitioner had approached the authorities before completion of entire examination, it would have amounted to interference in the examination schedule; there is no bar for submitting a representation for re-evaluation; answer sheets of the officers named by petitioner were re-evaluated and they were appointed to the respective posts; although the respondents have taken the stand that re-evaluation is not allowed, they have re-evaluated the answer sheets of the petitioner because the petitioner has moved the representation soon after the declaration of the final results.
11. The petitioner, in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition has given the question- wise details in respect of which he had raised the objections. In all, there are 15 questions or answers in respect of which the petitioner has raised the objections. In prayer, the petitioner has prayed for the writ or direction to reevaluate the answer sheets of the written test of the petitioner and to quash the impugned Memorandum dated 11.11.2021.
12. This matter was heard on 22.12.2021. The learned Advocate for the respondent/Registrar General-Delhi High Court was also present along with court officials. We have heard Mr D.N Goburdhun, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Padmapriya, learned Advocate for the respondent in detail.
13. The learned counsel for respondent has also filed a detailed comparative chart showing the disputed questions, the answers given by the present petitioner, the marks of obtained by him, answers as per the answer key provided by the Examiner and the remarks. Similarly, the petitioner has also filed a chronology of questions for enhancement of his marks.
14. Although, at the time of commencement of the arguments Mr. Goburdhun had referred to 15 questions, however during detailed arguments he had confined himself only to the following three questions and the answers thereto. We have taken the details of these questions from the chronology of questions filed on behalf of the petitioner. The said details are reproduced here under: “1. What are the six powers delegated to the Registrar for disposal of certain judicial matters?
2. Mention whether under any circumstances the rights conferred by Part-III are applicable to non-citizens?
3. Under what circumstances a petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India relation to habeas Corpus and preventive detention shall be placed before a Single Judge as provided in Rule l(xx)Ch-3, Part-B, Vol-5?”
15. The details of these questions have been given in the comparative chart at point No. 2, 3 and 7. The same are also reproduced here under:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Paper( Questions Answers given Marks Answers (as Remarks │ │ No s) asked By the Candidate/ Obtain per the │ │ . In Paper-I Representationist ed Answer │ │ & By the Key) │ │ Paper-II applica provided by │ │ nt the │ │ Examiner │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 2 Paper- Ques. 2 (i) This question 2 The powers A perusal of │ │ I Write any relation to Chapter (Out of of the the answer │ │ six powers III, Part (C) of 3 mark) Registrar are sheet of the │ │ delegated to Volume V. given in representation │ │ the Six powers (Ch-3, Part- ist would │ │ Registrar delegated to C R-1 Vol.5 show that the │ │ for disposal Registrar for Pg. 1299) Examiner has │ │ of disposal of certain marked │ │ powers │ │ W.P (C) 14014/2021 Page 6 of 15 │ │ 2022:DHC:828-DB │ │ certain Judicial matters are written by the │ │ judicial as under:- representation │ │ matters. (i) To issue ist at point │ │ summons to the Nos. (iv) │ │ defendant/Respond and (vi) as │ │ ent, to examine the incorrect, as │ │ serving offices the same do │ │ under Order V Rule not fall in │ │ 19, to issue Chapter-3, │ │ publication of Part-C, Rule- │ │ summons under 1, Volume-V. │ │ Order V Rule 20, Thus, │ │ and re-issue deduction of │ │ summon under one mark │ │ Order V of Rule 9 appears to be │ │ & 9A and justified. │ │ underorder V Rule │ │ 30 of the Code. │ │ (ii)To appoint next │ │ friend and guardian │ │ of a minor plaintiff │ │ or defendant under │ │ XXXII of the Code. │ │ (iii)To implead the │ │ legal heirs of the │ │ deceased plaintiff │ │ and Defendant │ │ under Order XXII │ │ of the Code. │ │ (iv)To sign the │ │ complaint under │ │ Section340(3). │ │ (v)To issue │ │ summons for │ │ proclamation of │ │ sale. │ │ (vi) To sign decree │ │ and transmit the │ │ same for execution. │ │ W.P (C) 14014/2021 Page 7 of 15 │ │ 2022:DHC:828-DB │ │ 3 Paper- Ques. 13 The right ½ Article 14. A conjoint │ │ II (iii)Mentio guaranteed under (Out of Yes. Subject reading of the │ │ n whether Article 22 is 2 mark) to answer given │ │ under any applicable to non- reasonable by the │ │ circumstanc citizen. restrictions representation │ │ es the rights Under Article 22 as may be ist and the │ │ guaranteed the right against imposed in model answer │ │ under Part- illegal detention the interest given by the │ │ III are and arrest have of the Examiner │ │ applicable been provided in security of would show │ │ to non- the Constitution. the State or that the │ │ citizens? other answer given │ │ important by the │ │ consideratio representation │ │ ns. ist is not up to │ │ [Chairman the mark. │ │ Railway Thus, │ │ Board vs. deduction of │ │ Chandrima one and a half │ │ Das, marks appears │ │ AIR2000 SC to be justified. │ │ 988; (2000) │ │ 2 SCC 465] │ │ 7 Paper- Ques. 1 (iii) This question 0 As per the A conjoint │ │ I | relates to Chapter- (Out of Explanation reading of the │ │ Under what Ill, Part-B Rule 2 mark) to Rule- answer given │ │ circumstanc l(xx). l(xx), by the │ │ es a petition During vacations Chapter-3, representation │ │ under the Single Judge in Part-B, ist and the │ │ Article 226 charge of the Volume-V, a model answer │ │ of the vacation roster can petition given by the │ │ Constitutio hear a petition of relating to Examiner │ │ n of India Habeas Corpus and habeas would show │ │ relating to preventive corpus or that the │ │ habeas detention. preventive answer given │ │ corpus and Provided that detention by the │ │ preventive during the vacation has to be representation │ │ detention the Hon'ble Judge placed ist is not │ │ shall be holding vacation before a correct. Thus, │ │ placed court has powers of Division │ │ before a both the civil and Bench and │ │ W.P (C) 14014/2021 Page 8 of 15 │ │ 2022:DHC:828-DB │ │ Single criminal not before a award of zero │ │ Judge as jurisdiction Single mark appears │ │ provided in exercised by the Bench. to be justified. │ │ Rule 1 Judges of High (Explanation │ │ (xx) Ch- Court. to Rule l(xx) │ │ 3Part-B Ch-3, Part- │ │ Vol.5? B, Vol.5 Pg. │ │ 1297 also │ │ Ch-4 Part- │ │ F(a), R-3, │ │ Vol.5 Pg. │ │ 1307) │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
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;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”
31. Clearly, the relevant Rules do not permit re-evaluation but we went to the extent of re-evaluating the 3 questions and answers highlighted by the learned counsel for petitioner for our satisfaction, and even if we agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for petitioner, the net result, as discussed in detail above, is that the petitioner does not find place in the selected list of candidates.
32. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending applications are also closed.
TALWANT SINGH, J RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MARCH 03, 2022 Click here to check corrigendum, if any