Delhi Higher Judiciary examination: HC refuses re-evaluation to aspirant falling in need of one mark

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to direct re-evaluation of one of many reply sheets of a Delhi Higher Judiciary Services (DHJS) aspirant who was one-mark in need of the qualifying threshold for the subsequent spherical within the aggressive check.

Calling it ‘undoubtedly a tough case’, a bench by Justice Vibhu Bakhru famous that the petitioner, a lawyer, scored the best amongst all unsuccessful candidates however within the absence of a flaw within the marking system or the process adopted for analysis, the court docket can’t lend any help to him.

The bench, additionally comprising Justice Amit Mahajan, added that the court docket could train energy underneath Article 226 of the Constitution to offer aid in uncommon and distinctive instances the place it’s established that there’s a manifest error within the analysis of examination papers or had been there the appropriate of candidates for a good analysis in accordance with the desired process has impinged.

The petitioner failed to attain the qualifying marks solely in one of many examination papers i.e ‘Law-III’ whereas scoring considerably greater marks within the remaining papers within the DHJS Main (written) examination and was thus eradicated from the aggressive examination.

Undoubtedly, this can be a onerous case the place 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,” stated the court docket in its order dated September 12.

“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 is possible that on a re-evaluation, the petitioner may secure higher marks,” noticed the court docket.

“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,” added the court docket.

The court docket additional famous situations of different equally positioned candidates and noticed that if re-evaluation is permitted, it could even be needed to take action for different candidates as nicely.

The court docket additionally thought of that undeniably the marking was strict as fifty-four candidates did not qualify for the examination paper in query however added, that despite the fact that the marking has been considerably strict, a enough variety of candidates have secured the qualifying marks.

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to direct re-evaluation of one of many reply sheets of a Delhi Higher Judiciary Services (DHJS) aspirant who was one-mark in need of the qualifying threshold for the subsequent spherical within the aggressive check.

Calling it ‘undoubtedly a tough case’, a bench by Justice Vibhu Bakhru famous that the petitioner, a lawyer, scored the best amongst all unsuccessful candidates however within the absence of a flaw within the marking system or the process adopted for analysis, the court docket can’t lend any help to him.

The bench, additionally comprising Justice Amit Mahajan, added that the court docket could train energy underneath Article 226 of the Constitution to offer aid in uncommon and distinctive instances the place it’s established that there’s a manifest error within the analysis of examination papers or had been there the appropriate of candidates for a good analysis in accordance with the desired process has impinged.

The petitioner failed to attain the qualifying marks solely in one of many examination papers i.e ‘Law-III’ whereas scoring considerably greater marks within the remaining papers within the DHJS Main (written) examination and was thus eradicated from the aggressive examination.

Undoubtedly, this can be a onerous case the place 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,” stated the court docket in its order dated September 12.

“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 is possible that on a re-evaluation, the petitioner may secure higher marks,” noticed the court docket.

“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,” added the court docket.

The court docket additional famous situations of different equally positioned candidates and noticed that if re-evaluation is permitted, it could even be needed to take action for different candidates as nicely.

The court docket additionally thought of that undeniably the marking was strict as fifty-four candidates did not qualify for the examination paper in query however added, that despite the fact that the marking has been considerably strict, a enough variety of candidates have secured the qualifying marks.