Judicial Services – Tripura Judicial Service – Revaluation of answer papers – Writ petition filed by the first respondent challenging the results and seeking revaluation was dismissed by High Court – SLP dismissed by Supreme Court – 5 years thereafter, review petition filed against dismissal of writ petition, which was allowed by High Court – In instant case, appellant contended that there was no right to seek re-evaluation unless there is a provision which entitles a candidate to seek revaluation and there was an inordinate delay with which Review Petition was filed – Held: In absence of any provision, the Court should not generally direct revaluation – The Court may permit revaluation, inter alia, only if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases on the commission of material error – In instant case, the review petition was filed in High Court after 5 years of dismissal of the SLP – Also, there were supervening development in the form of fresh selection in between – It may not be correct to characterize the case as a rare or exceptional case when the first respondent approaches the Court with a delay of nearly 5 years allowing subsequent events to overtake him and the Court – High Court ought not to have allowed the review petition – Delay/Laches – Constitution of India – Art.226.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. There is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in the absence of any provision for revaluation. Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on the said basis. The first question to answer is whether despite the absence of any provision, are the courts completely denuded of power in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct revaluation? It is true that the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and the corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out the public duty. Thus, as of right, it is clear that the first respondent could not maintain either writ petition or the review petition demanding holding of revaluation. [Para 18][701-H; 702-A-B]
2. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation in a situation where a candidate despite having giving correct answer and about which there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any marks. [Para 19][702-C-E]
3. In the absence of any provision the Court should not generally direct revaluation. In instant case, the writ petition was filed challenging the results and seeking revaluation. The writ petition came to be dismissed in the year 2012 by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed in the year 2013. The review petition is filed after nearly 5 years. In the interregnum, there were supervening development in the form of fresh selection. While it may be true that the delay in filing the review petition may have been condoned, it does not mean that the Court where it exercises its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is to become oblivious to the subsequent development and the impact of passage of time. [Paras 21 and 22][702-H; 703-A-B]
4. The Court may permit revaluation inter alia only if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases on the commission of material error. It may not be correct to characterize the case as a rare or exceptional case when the first respondent approaches the Court with a delay of nearly 5 years allowing subsequent events to overtake him and the Court. This aspect was not fully appreciated by the High Court. The review, it must be noted is not a re-hearing of the main matter. A review would lie only on detection without much debate of an error apparent. It is here that this Court must notice the argument of the appellant relating to question in Part III of the examination alone, engaging the attention of the Court for the reason that the first respondent pressed this aspect alone before the High court. The judgment of the High Court in the writ petition appears to bear out this submission of the appellant. The issue relating to the anomaly in the evaluation of the Paper III has been discussed thread bare in the judgment. The view of the High Court has not been disturbed by this Court. Despite this the High Court in the impugned judgment has proceeded to take up the plea relating to questions in Part-I and Part-II and proceeded to consider the review petition and granted relief that too after the passage of nearly 5 years. This suffices to allow the present appeal. This Court would like to rest its conclusion on the basis that not being armed with a right given by a provision providing revaluation and in the facts which have been already set out and the reasons alluded, the High Court ought not to have allowed the review petition. [Paras 22 and 31][703-D-G; 705-G-H]
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 759 : [2010]
7 SCR 189; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004)
6 SCC 714 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372; Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 523 : [2011] 10 SCR 286 – relied on.
K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 : [2001] 3 SCR 473; Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 357 : [2017]
12 SCR 95 ; Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602 : [2011] 3 SCR 746 ; V.S. Achuthan v. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759 ; U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman & Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Anr. [2018] SCR 28; Salem Advocates Bar
Association Case (2005) 6 SCC 344 : [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 929 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.