DHJS Exam: High Court Refuses To Re-Evaluate Answer Sheet Of Aspirant Unsuccessful By One Mark

The Delhi High Court has observed that in rare and exceptional cases where it is established that there is a manifest error in evaluation of examination papers, the court may exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide appropriate relief.

A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan added that in cases where it is established that the right of candidates for a fair evaluation in accordance with the specified procedure has been impinged, it may be necessary for the courts to exercise the said power to ensure that the rights of examinees are preserved.

The Court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by a candidate (an advocate) seeking a direction on Delhi High Court to recheck or re-examine his answer-sheets in respect of examination paper, Law-III in respect of Delhi Higher Judiciary Services.

The petitioner had scored 89 marks out of the maximum of 200 marks in the said paper, which was one mark short of qualifying threshold of 45%.

The petitioner's aggregate marks of all papers was 437 marks out of a maximum of 750 marks. The petitioner was eliminated from the competitive examination for appointment to Delhi Higher Judiciary Services, solely on account of not securing 45% marks in the examination paper, Law-III.

While the petitioner had secured marks significantly higher than the qualifying marks in the examination papers of general knowledge and language, Law-I and Law-II, he failed to met the qualifying threshold in Law-III.

The question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to seek re-evaluation of his answer- sheets in respect of the examination paper, Law-III.

The Court was of the view in cases where the court finds that there is manifest error in the marking system or failure to follow the procedure or a systemic failure of the examination or selection scheme, the court can exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to remedy the same.

"Undoubtedly, this is a hard case where a meritorious candidate has not met the requisite cut-off. However, this Court is unable to accept that there is any manifest error in the marking system or any systematic failure," the Court said.

"It is relevant to note that answers to the questions set in the paper for Law-III were essay type questions and were evaluated subjectively. This Court is informed that to ensure consistency, the answer-sheets were evaluated by the same examiner," it said.

The Court added, "It is possible that on a re-evaluation, the petitioner may secure higher marks. However, absent circumstances that indicate any flaw in the marking system or the procedure followed for evaluation of answer sheets, this Court is unable to lend any assistance to the petitioner."

The plea was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: MAYANK GARG v. DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 860

Click Here To Read Order