Bhupender Pal Sharma v. The Registrar General, Delhi High Court

SANJIV KHANNA, J. y For detailed order see W.P. (C) 207/2013 titled Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs. High Court ofDelhi through Registrar General pronounced today. •//^ JANUARY 28"', 2013 kkb (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE y A (SIDDMARTH MRIDUL) ' JUDGE Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. , i 1N 11-IE HIGH COURT OF DEL0.1 AT NEW DELHI H-WR.ri\PETnTON (CIVIL) .NO. 207/2013 Reserved on: 21^' January, 2013 % Date of Decision: January, 2013 Rajesh Kumar Verma ....Petitioner • " Through IN PERSON Versus High CourlofDelhi throughRegistrarGeneral ...Respondent Through ' Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocate. + WRfT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 337/2013 Reserved on: 22"''January, 2013 % Dale ofDecision: ^<^^\Xanuary,2013 P.hupendcrPal Sharma ....Petitioner Tiirough Mr. SanjayJain, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. Rishab Wadhwa and Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocates. Versus Iiigh Courtof Delhi throughRegistrarGeneral ...Respondent Through Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocatewith Mr. Chetan Lokur and Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocates. CORAM: HON'Bt.E MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONVBLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDIJL

SANJIV KHANNA, J. Aforcnientionedtwo writ petitions questionthe results of Delhi .Tudicial Scrviccs Mains .Examination,2012. Interviews for sclcction arc to coiTiiTicnccon 2B"' January, 2013 and there being urgcncy, we have hoard the argumentsand proceededto deliverourjudgment,as any delay i, would have causcd prejudiceto the petitionersand an interim orderthat Wi^c) No, 7.07/201.3&337/2013 P^ge 1of17 V. ly \ the two petitionersand others similarly situated siiould be called for interview would have created its own complicationsor a stay order would have upset the entire schedule causing prejudice to others. In these circumstanceswe have dispensedwith the requirementof counter affidavit and the respondents have been permitted to rely upon data/figuresfurnishedin a form of a chart. /

¶2Rajesh Kumar Verma,who arguedthe writ petitionin person,has submitted that he had secured qualifying marks in three papers viz. Generall<aiowledgeand Language(115 out of250), CriminalLaw (104 . out of 200) and Civil Law-ll (103.5 out of 200), but could not qualify Civil Law-I in which he was awarded 53 marks out of 200. Rajesh Kumar Verma moved an application,under the Right to Information Act, 2005, for inspectionofthe answerscript. On inspectionhe cameto know that in QuestionNo.1of Part-A, Civil Law - I paper, he was awarded '0' (zero) out of 25 marks.

¶3The contentionof Rajesh Kumar Verma is that the evaluationof Part-A of Civil Law-I paper, in which he scored low marks, was done arbitrarilysince there were no guidelines,schemeofvaluationor model answers. Further, there was no system of supervisionor review of assessmenti.e. marks awarded by the examiner. Ihis, accordingto him, has resultedin violationofArticle 14 ofthe Constitutionas he has been deniedrightto fair evaluation,appearancebeforethe interviewpaneland possible selection. Reliance is placed on the instructions, m the examinationpaperof Civil Law-I, to the effectthat "Evenifyou do not know the answer,you may attemptthe questionsas the testis not only of knowledge of law but of the candidate'sanalytical skill also." In support of his contentions, Rajesh Kumar Verma has relied upon decisionsofthe SupremeCourtin KumariShrilekhaVidyarthiand Ors. WP(C) No, 207/2013&337/2013 Page2of17 KState of U.P. and Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 212; F. SrinivasaRao v. J. Veeraiah and Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 63; The Institute of Chartered AccountantsofIndia v. ShaunakH. Satyaand Ors. (2011)8SCC 781 and decisionof KeralaHigh Court in Dr. B.K. MadhumohanandAm. V. State ofKerala and Ors. 2000 KLJ 911. Rcliancewas also placed upon Ihc decisionof the BombayHigh Court in SunilKumarSharma and Ors. v. UniversityofBombayandAnr. 1987 MhlJ 124, to contend that there is difference between re-evaluationof examinationpaper, which may not be permissibleunlessthere is arule or policyto the said effect,and cases where the examineror the examinationresultsitselfare faulty becausethe examinerhas not followedcertainbasicparametersor standard oi' assessment.lie has contended that his ease falls into the latter category.

¶4On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for BhupenderPal Sharma,has impelledthat it is opento the court to dhect V re-evaluationor rechecldngof answer-sheetswhen the rules, policy or terms of examination are silent. Reliance has been placed on the judgmentofthis Courtin WritPetition(Civil)No. 2636/2012titledSalil Maheshwari v. High Court of Delhi, through Registrar General, decidedon 4^'' May, 2012.

¶5It was accentuatedthat the candidatein question,BhupenderPal Sharma, had secured 79 marks out of 200 marks in Civil Law-I and, therefore,becauseofone mark, has failed to qualifyfor the interview,in spiteofsecuringrequisitemarks in otherwrittenpapers. It is submitted that the said candidatehas been awarded'0' (zero)mark in QuestionNo. 4(b), out of 12.5 marks allocatedto the said question. WP{C) No. 207/2013&337/2013 3of17

¶6Another submission made is that 205 candidates, wlio were*^ declared as quahfied in 2"^/3"' Ust, publishedon 30^'^ May, 2012, have• been discriminated against because they were asked to appear in the Main SubjectiveWritten Examinationmerely eight days thereafter,on 9"' and lO"' June, 2012. Therefore, the other 346 candidates, whose names were publishedon 21'' April, 2012, benefitedby gaining longer / lime to prepare for the Main Subjective Written Examination. The discriminationand lack of preparationtime is apparent,as it resultedin just 15 out of 215 candidatesqualifyingfor the interview,whereas 61 out of 346 candidatesqualifiedfor interviewfrom the earlierlist.

¶7In the writ petition,filed by BhupendcrKumar Sharma,reliance has been placed upon decision of Kerala High Court in B.K. Madhumohan (supra) and the decision of Supreme Court in F. SrinivasaRao (supra) and SanchitBansal&Anr. v. JointAdmission Board& Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 8520/2011 (AIR 2012 SC 214) and V SanjaySingh &Anr, v. U.P. PublicServiceCommission,Allahabad& Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720.

¶8In order to decide the above contentions,certain basic facts may be noticed. Recruitmentofjudicialofficersto Delhi JudicialServiceis held as per the procedure,criteriaand qualificationsprescribedunderthe Delhi JudicialServiceRule, 1970. The said rules (See Appendixto the Rules) prescribea three stages process. In the first stage, the eligible candidatesappearin the objectivetype multiplechoiceexammationand, on the basis of their scores, qualify to appear in the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Written lixaminafion. This written examination is subjective with long answers and consists of four distinct papers, GeneralKnowledge&language,CivilEaw-I, Civil Law-IIand Criminal Law. Generalcandidateswho secure 50% marks in aggregateand 40% \A/P(C) No. 207/2013&337/2013 Page ^ L marks in cach paper and 45% marks in aggregate and 35%.marlcsin each paper, if he/she belongs to the reserved category, qualify for the interview.

¶9Tlie Civil Law-I paper, in the present case, consisted of two parts 'Part-A' and 'Part-B'. The cumulative marks, obtained in both the parts, have been taken into consideration for deciding whether the minimum criteria, as mentioned in the rules,are satisfied by the candidate.

¶10Writ petition, filed by Rajesh Kumar Verma, was listed before another Bench and transferred to be listed before this Bench on 16"" January,2013. On the said date, the respondentsenteredappearance,on advancenotice, and their counselwas directedto place on recorddetails which were relevant and material, in form of data. It was also directed, that to the extent permittedand permissiblein law, the said details or data shall be furnished to the petitioner.

¶11The respondentson the next date i.e. 21^' January, 2013, placed before us, a chart setting out data required in order to decide the controversybefore us. I'or the sake of completeness,we are producing the entire chart:- "DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE MAIN EXAM (WRITTEN) HELD ON 9''"'"' AND lO'''" .lUNE,2012 QUESTION Whether papers were checked by one l-xaminer. How many students had appeared and how many students passed Civil I.aw-I paper. PAPER - CIVIL LAW-I ANSWER Yes. The paperwas dividedin 2 parts i.e. Part-A& Part-B. Part-A of all the candidates was examined by one examiner and Part-B by the other examiner. Appeared • 453 Passed - 265 Failed - WP(C) No. 207/2013 &337/2013 f • V What is range of marks which the stiidents got. "part A ' (100 marks) Max. . Part Part-A Min. PART-B (100 marks) Max. Min. '""4 PART^A-i-^^ (200 marks) Max. Min Were there candidates who got '0' marlcs Question No. No. of Candidates awarded '0' marks for answer How many candidates missed by one or two marlcs Part-A Part-A Part-A Part-A" Part-A Part-A Part-A Part-A "^Part-A Part-I^ Part-B Part-B Part-B Part-B Part-B Part-B Part-B "Part-B Part-B Section Sec-I Sec-i Sec-I Sec-II Sec-Il' Sec-II Sec-III Sec-ill Sec-III Se^-IV Sec-IV Candidates missed by 1 marks - 5 Candidates missed by 2 marks - 5 Q.No. '3(a) "3(b) 4(a) 4(b) "5(a) 5(b) 6(a) 6(b) 1 ' ?' j "Y fo 8"^ •4" "T J l8 ~4" "(f The said figures/datawere made availableto the learned counsel for Bhupender Pa] Sharma whose, writ petition came up for hearingbeforeus on 22"'"'January,2013. WP(C) No. 207/2013 &337/2013 Page 6 of 17, , /

¶12In addition to the said data, the respondents have filed a detailed chart with the name of the candidates, their category and the marks awarded to each question in Civil Law-I paper, for all candidates who appeared in the Delhi Judicial Service Main Written Examination, held on June, 2012. To maintain secrecy and confidentiality, this data was not provided to the two petitioners. However, the chart, filed in support of the data/figures quoted above, validates the data quoted above. The said chart will be kept on record in a sealed cover by the Registrar General.

¶13At this stage, we would first like to deal with the contentionraised

¶1• by the petitioner Bhupender Pal Sharma that re-evaluation and recheckingof the question4(b), in whichthe said petitionerhad secured '0' zero marks out of 12.5 marks, should be permitted. It is an accepted and admitted position that the rules and the terms, on which the examination was held, are silent regarding re-evaluation. The petitioner •J propels that silence does not amount to a negative command and, therefore, does not bar or prohibit re-evaluation. We reject the said contention. The issue in questionis not res integm and has been settled by the Supreme Court in several decisions. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bkupesh Kurmarsheth and others. AIR 1984 SC 1543, the SupremeCourt has held that directionfor re-evaluationcannotbe issued when there is no provisionor absenceof provisionfor re-evaluation. In other words, there must be a specific provision for re-evaluation on merits before it can be directed. The Supreme Court further held that a policydecisionor provisionsin rules that no re-checking,verificationor re-evaluationwill be permitted,cannot be challengedon the ground of arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, unless it can Page 7of17 be shown that the poUcy itself was in violation of some statutory provision. It was observed:- " It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegateto determine,as a matter of policy, how the provisionsof the Statutecan best be implementedand what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act < The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislatureand the subordinate regulation-makingbody. It may bea wise policywhichwill fully effectuatethe purpose of the enactmentor it may be lacking in effectivenessand hence callingfor revisionand improvement. But any drawbacks • in the policy incorporatedin a rule or regulationwill not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in-its opinion,it is not a wise or prudentpolicy,butis even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act...."

¶14A more categoricalexpositionon the said principleis elucidated in Pmmod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna tS: Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4116:- "7 Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provisionwhereina candidatemay beentitledto ask for re-evolution of his answer-book. There is a provisionfor scrutiny only wherein the answer-booksare seen for the purpose of checking whether ail the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistakein the totalingof marks of each question and noting them correctlyon the first cover page of" the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provisionfor re-evaluationofanswer-booksin the relevant rules, no candidate in an examinationhas got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks."

¶15• A similarview has been taken Dr. Muneeh Ul Rehman Haroon & Ors. V. GovernmentofJammiiand KashmirState & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1585; BoardofSecondaryEducation v. PravasRanjan Panda & Page8of 17 V v\ Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383; President, Board of Secondary Education, On'ssa & Anr. v. D. Suvankar Anr.

(2007) 1 SCC 603; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3098; and Sahiti & Ors. v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of-Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599.

¶16Referringto the aforesaiddecisions,the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 907/2006 and 897/2006 titled H.P. Public Service Commissionv. Mukesh Thakur &. Anr. decidedon 25'"'^ May, 2010, set aside the judgment and order of High Court and allowed the appeals observing that in the absence of any provision under the Statute or Stcitutory Rules/Regulations,the court should not generally direct re-evaluation.

¶17The decision of this Court in the case of Salil Maheshwari (supra) and Gunjan Sinha Jain v. High Court of Delhi through RegistrarGeneral, WP (Civil)No. 449/2012,anotherconnectedmatter decided on 9"' April, 2012, are clearly distinguishableand are not contrary to the principle or ratio stated above. Judgment in Salil Maheshwari's case (supra) simply refers to the decision in Gunjan Sinha Jain's case (supra). In Gunjan Sinha Jain's case, a Division Bench of this Court noticcd dcfccts in some of the objective questions and the suggestedcorrect answers. The answers had to be marked by pcncil for the puiposeofOpticalMark Recognition(OMR). It was, in these circumstances that certain directions were issued in paragraphs 75, 76 and 77 of the judgment,after noticingthat the rules stipulatedthat minimum •qualifying marks must be secured and the number of candidates,to be admittedin the mains examination,shouldnot be more than 10 times the total number of vacanciesadvertised. Accordingly, some directionswere issued and the conditionof permittingappearing Page 9 (9 candidates to be onl}' 10 times the seats was diluted. This was a pragmatic solution to the problem which had arisen. In Salil Maheshwari's case (supra), it was noticed that the petitioner therein, on the basis of computation of marks, pursuant to decision in Gunjan Sinha Jain's case (supra), had got 118.5 marks. However, the list of top 230 candidates had ended at 122.5 marks and, therefore, the writ petition of ^ Salil Maheshwari was dismissed.

¶18We do not think that the judgment in the case of Gunjan Sinha Jain's case (supra), postulates re-evaluation or re-examination of a single answer or the entire paper. The said judgment was given in a peculiarsituation, where some questionswere ambiguousand debatable, or multiple choices were incorrect or the' answers given in the answer sheet were incorrect. The situation was entirely different. Similarly, in the case of Siinil Kumar Sharma's case (supra), the Bombay High Court dealt with a peculiar factual matrix. 729 students had appeared J and their papers in question were checked by 3 different examiners. One examiner had checked and awarded marks to 22 candidates. He failed the entire lot of 22 candidates whose papers were checked by him. They \ were awarded marks between 4% to 19%. The High Court allowed the writ observing that there was violation of two statutory paragraphs which stipulated that the Chairman shall discuss the synoptic answers with his examiners to ensure uniform standard in assessment and the Chairman/ Senior Examiner had the right to review the assessment done by the examiner and could issue instructionsto the examinerto review or reassess the answer-sheet. Hie examiner was to abide by the instructions. The statutory paragraphs were important as they prevented discrimination when the answer papers were checked by different examiners. Violation of the said paragraphs was the cornerstone of the Page 10of17 said decision. In Sanchit Bansal(supm) it has been observed that Court can interfere and direct re-evaluation of the performance etc. where, (i) there is violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations;(ii) mala fides or ulteriormotivesto assist or enableprivate gain to someone or cause prejudiceto anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious. The procedure is arbitrary and < capricious when it is illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. • 19. In the present case, the answer sheets of Part-A of Civil Law-I, • have been examined by one examiner and not by multiple or several examiners. The said examiner has uniformly applied the same standard while checkingthe answersof all the candidates.The chartquoted,-above shows that, out of 453 candidates, 265 candidates passed Civil Law-I paper and 188 candidateshave failed. Substantialnumberof candidates have clearedthe paper and secured good marks. In Part-A of the said V paper, the maximum mark secured by a candidate is 76% and the minimum marks secured is 7. In Part-B of the paper, which was checked by a different examiner, maximum marks secured is 73% and the minimum marlcs secured is 4%. Even in Part-B examination,several candidates have secured '0' zero marks in respect of their answers. The number of candidates securing '0' zero marks in Part-A paper may be more, but this cannotbe a groundto re-examineor re-cvaluatethe entire paper or even specific answers. If we allow re-examinationor re-cvaluationoi" the answer paper, in one case or even one question,the said exercise may have to be completedacross the board, in all cases where candidates have secured '0' zero or one, two or low marks. No particularcandidatecan be given preference. /Fhus, if the plea ofthe petitioner is accepted, it will lead to unpalatable and incongruous Page H of 17 r •j \ situation which should be avoid. Rajesh Kumar Verma has secured 53 marks out of 200 in Civil Law Paper 1 and he is short by 17 marks. The difference is substantial in his case. In Bhupender Pal Sharma's case the difference may be of only one mark but this by itself as noticed and clucidatcd below cannot be a ground to direct re-evaluation or award gracc marks. Given the intensecompetition,it is not uncommonto come across cases where the difference between a selected and unselected candidate is in fraction or less than one mark.

¶20In matters of examination, especially competitive examination for selectionjudicial interferenceshould be exercisedwith care and grave caution. Such kind of intrusion is rare. Wc do not thinlc that present case warrants interference and the valuation of marks award in the two papers/answersare so glaring,absurd or demonstrablyun-consciousable that interference is called for. Answers papers of the two petitioners were in fact shownto us. The presentcases do not fall underthe limited exceptionscarvedout in SanchitBansal'sCase (supra).Any interference will lead to gross and indefmite uncertainty besides creating utter confusion,'llie positionwhichhas been highlightedand explainedby the SupremeCourtinMaharashtraStateBoard's case (supra).

¶21The contentionof BhupenderPal Sharmathat he should be given one mark, does not have any merit. We noticedthat as perthe chart,five candidates have missed the qualifyingmark by one and another five candidatesby two marks. There is no provisionfor givingbonus marks or additional marks to any candidate. It will be improper and incoiTect to give bonus mark or even upgrade the marks. In Registrar,Rajiv Gandhi Universityof HealthSciences,Bangalorev. G. Hemlathaand Ors.., (2012)8 SCC 568 it was held: r / "12. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us, which permit rounding-off of ehgibihty criteria prescribed for the quahfying examination for admission to the PG course in MSc (Nursing). When the ehgibility criteria is prescribed in a quahfyingexamination,it must be strictlyadheredto. Any dilution or tamperingwith it will work injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the learned Single Judge was right in rounding-offof 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent 1 eligiblefor admissionto the PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible." The said judgmentalso makes referenceto an earlierdecisionin Orissa Service Public Commission v. Rupashri Chaudhary, (2011) 8 see 108, thatneithergrace marksnor roundingoffis permissibleunless there is a permissibleterm under which the examinationswere held. In the said case, the candidatein questionhad securedqualifyingmarks in each individualpaper but in aggregatehad 44.93% marks and not 45% marks as stipulatedin the rules. The differencewas only 0.07% but the appeal tiled was allowed by the SupremeCourt and the judgmentofthe High Court was. set aside, observing that rounding off or additional marks could not have been given.

¶22In Umesh Chand Shukla v. UOI, AIR 1985 SC 1351, Full Court resolution of the High Court directingmoderationby awarding2 marks in each paper to all candidateswas adverselycommentedupon and the moderation done was struck down'. Exercise of power of moderationwas likelyto createa feelingof discriminationin the process of selection and would violate principle of.equality and may lead to arbitrariness. There might be hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make a bad law.

¶23In RajinderKumarAggarwalv. High Court ofDelhi andAnr., 1993 (25) DRJ 602, a DivisionBench ofthis court examiningthe rules, has held that there is no provision for reevaluationor moderationof / I ' V answer-sheets. In the said case, the petitioner therein had secured one marlc less for qualifying,in one ofthe papers,but had obtainedsufficient marks in other papers. The petitionertherein had made referenceto a f\ill Court Resolution. The said contention was rejected, after referring to order dated 26"' July, 1985 passed by the Supreme Court in an applicationin Writ PetitionNo. 3805/1985dated 26"' July, 1985, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "At the hearing of the above writ petition Mr. F.S. Nariman,learnedcounselfor ShriRajan Sharma,one of the candidates selected for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination held in the year 1984, who has been imp leaded as a respondentin this case submits fairly and we think rightly that in the absence of an express rule for re valuationit was not possiblefor the examiningbody to get one of the answer books of Shri Rajan Sharma revalued. In the absence of 18 marks which were added at the reevaluation, Shri Rajan Sharma would not have been eligiblefor the viva voce examinationeventhoughinsome of the papers at the examination,he had done well. Shri Rajan Sharma, Therefore, withdraws his application for appointmentto the Delhi Judicial Service. We appreciate the stand rightlytaken by Sim Rajan Sharmain this Court. In view of the above we direct that the name of Shri Rajan Sharma would not be consideredby the examiningbody for the purposeofapp.ointnientatthe 1984examination. sd/- E.S .Venkataramahia, J.

R.B. Mishra, J. July 26, 1985." I'he DivisionBench rejectedthe contentionthat the petitionerhad excellentacademicrecord and had securedFirst Divisionin LL.B. and that 1(one) gracemark shouldbe given. Similarview has beentakenin VipinSandujav. Registrar,DelhiHigh Court, 85 (2000)DLl 471.

¶24The contention that the absence of guidelines, moderation or model answers results in arbitrarycheckingby the examinerhas to be rejectedas unsustainableand meritless. The answer sheets relatingto Page 14 of17 \ •J Part-A were examined by one single examiner and not by different examiners. The rules do not stipulate that there should be model answers or mandatory guidelines, in writing, for assessment. The answerpapershave been checkedby examinerswho are proficient,well conversant and have knowledge of the subjects. The examination, in' question, is for appointment to Delhi Judicial Service and is a competitiveexaminationand not a collegeor school examination. High standardsare requiredand justified.The checkingand allottingof marks, for Part-A,may be strict,but this does not mean that Courtcan interfere in exerciseof its jurisdictionunder Article226 of the Constitution. In matters of evaluation by experts and the standards which should be adoptedand applied,the courts cannotsubstituteor adornthe role ofthe examiner. It cannot substitute its own opinion regarding what marks could or should have been awarded, as the result. Interference is rare and justifiedonly when there is a blatantmiscarriageofjusticeas set out in Sanchit Bansal's case (supra). The following observationsin H.P. Public Service Commission (supra), are apposite: "19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission' had assessed the inter-se merit of the.candidates. If there was a discrepancyin franiing the question of evaluationof the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No. 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics,chemistryand mathematics,we are unable to understand as to whether such a course have been adopted by the High Court."

¶25In view of what we have stated above, we need not specifically deal with the decisions relied upon by the petitioner Rajesh Kumar Vcrma, relating to principle of arbitrariness,'transparencyetc. in the J • cases of Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra). In'F. Srinivasa Rao's case (supra),abettercandidatewith the B.Com degreeand longerexperience was ignored on the ground that the said aspects cannot be taken into considerationfor the purposeofcomparisonwith the selectedcandidate though they were relevantfor the puipose of marks. Selectionwas by interview and the allegation was that the interviewwas a farce. The SupremeCourtwhileallowingthe appealobservedthat in the absenceof guidelines,the selectionwas left to the whims of the individualofficei holdingthe interviewwho had unbridledpowers. This is not so in the present case as there was a written examinationand marks have been awarded by examiners. The question papers and answer papers are available. The decision in Dr. BJC Madhumohan (supra), is distinguishablefor the reason, in the said case the question setters themselves admitted that several questions should be deleted as there were no correct choices in the answer booklet and the questionswere controversial.It is in this context,it was observedthat capriciousacts of examinersare not immune from interferenceof the court. Ihis was a case of blatant miscarriage of justice.

¶26The contentionraised by BhupenderPal Sharmaregardinglackof preparationtime and discrimination,as there were two separatelists and last and second list came out eight days before the examination,has to be rejected. Having participatedin the examination and taken the chance, the candidate cannot be allowed to object to the date of examinationor submitthat the examinationshouldhave beenpostponed. The said plea is unacceptable and would set at naught the entire examinationprocess. It was open to the candidates,who had fded Civil AppealNo. 4794/2012,beforethe SupremeCourtto raisethe said plea. We may only note here that list of 205 candidatesdated 30 May, 2012 " x. w was circLilatcd pursuant to the order of" the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 28"' May,'2012. By that time, the date of written examina;tion in June, 2012 had already been notified and this was Imown to all candidates, including the petitioners. Similar contentions were raised in WP(C) No. 3667/2012 Vivek Tomar v. the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi and WP(C) 3668/2012 Archana Aggarwal v. the Registrar General High Court of Delhi, but were rejected vide order dated 6"^ June, 2012, recordingthatthe SupremeCourtwhilepassingthe order dated 28^' May, 2012, did not considerit necessaryto extendthe date for conducting the examination.

¶27In view of the aforesaid position, the writ petitions are dismissed. No Costs. (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE iRTH MRIDUL) • JUDGE JANUARY^^,2013 klcb ^ Page 17of17

f d -S. -r * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 337/2013 Reservedon: 22"''January, 2013 % DateofDecision: 28"'January, 2013 Bhupender Pal Sharma ' ....Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishab Wadhwa and Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocates. Versus High Court of Delhi through Registrar General ... .Respondent Through Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate with Mr. Chetan Lokur and Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL