Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Gauhati High Court allowing a review petition filed by the first respondent, a candidate in the Tripura Judicial Service examination, and directing re-evaluation of his answer scripts. The first respondent had appeared for the Grade-I post pursuant to an advertisement, cleared the preliminary exam, but failed the main written exam by 5 marks (175 out of 300). After his writ petition seeking re-evaluation was dismissed in 2012, and his special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2013, he filed a review petition in 2018, nearly five years later. The High Court allowed the review, noting that while the 2003 Rules did not provide for re-evaluation, there was no prohibition, and it found certain answers in Papers II and III that might require a relook. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal by the High Court of Tripura, examined two main issues: the maintainability of the review petition after dismissal of the SLP, and the merits of ordering re-evaluation. On the first issue, the Court noted conflicting precedents (K. Rajamouli vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy and Gangadhara Palo vs. Revenue Divisional Officer) and that the matter had been referred to a larger Bench, so it declined to decide on that ground. On the merits, the Court relied on Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur, holding that in the absence of any provision in the rules permitting re-evaluation, a candidate has no right to seek it, and courts cannot order re-evaluation except in rare cases where a material error is clearly demonstrated without inferential reasoning. The High Court's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Maintainability after dismissal of SLP - Conflicting views on whether filing review after SLP dismissal constitutes abuse of process - Matter referred to larger Bench - Court declined to decide on this ground (Paras 10-12).
B) Service Law - Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts - Absence of statutory provision - No right to re-evaluation unless rules permit - High Court cannot order re-evaluation in absence of clear provision or exceptional circumstances demonstrating material error without inferential reasoning (Paras 13-14).
C) Service Law - Judicial Review of Examination - Scope - Court cannot act as super examiner or re-evaluate answer sheets itself - Only permissible if statute/rules permit or in rare cases of demonstrated material error (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing a review petition and directing re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation under the governing rules, and whether the review petition was maintainable after dismissal of the special leave petition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 19.03.2018, and dismissed the review petition filed by the respondent. The Court held that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation under the governing rules, the High Court was not justified in ordering re-evaluation. The Court did not decide on the maintainability ground due to conflicting precedents and reference to larger Bench.
Law Points
- Review petition after dismissal of SLP
- maintainability
- re-evaluation of answer scripts without statutory provision
- scope of judicial review in examination matters
Case Details
Civil Appeal No(s).1264 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.12624 of 2018)
High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General
Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order allowing review petition and directing re-evaluation of answer scripts in a judicial service examination selection process.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (High Court of Tripura) sought setting aside of the High Court's order allowing review and directing re-evaluation.
Filing Reason
The High Court allowed a review petition filed by the respondent after dismissal of his writ petition and SLP, directing re-evaluation of his answer scripts despite no provision for re-evaluation under the governing rules.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No.1809 of 2012 filed by respondent was dismissed on 12.12.2012; SLP against that dismissal was dismissed by Supreme Court on 23.07.2013; thereafter, respondent filed Review Petition No.21 of 2018 which was allowed by the High Court on 19.03.2018.
Issues
Whether the review petition was maintainable after dismissal of the special leave petition?
Whether the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation under the governing rules?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that review petition was not maintainable as it was filed after dismissal of SLP, relying on K. Rajamouli vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy; there was inordinate delay of nearly 5 years; and no right to re-evaluation exists without statutory provision, citing Pramod Kumar Srivastava.
Respondent argued that the examiner had not awarded marks for correct answers, causing grave injustice; High Court had found patent errors; and relied on Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. to argue that re-evaluation may be permitted in rare cases of material error.
Ratio Decidendi
A candidate has no right to seek re-evaluation of answer scripts unless the governing rules provide for it. Courts cannot order re-evaluation in the absence of such provision, except in rare cases where a material error is clearly demonstrated without inferential reasoning. The High Court's order directing re-evaluation was set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
In Pramod Kumar Srivastava case (Supra), a Bench of three learned Judges after, in fact, adverting to the judgment of a Bench of two learned Judges in 1984 (4) SCC 27 proceeded to lay down as follows:- ...........“7. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.”
In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. 2010 (6) SCC 759, a Bench of two learned Judges held as follows:- “20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates.”
Procedural History
Respondent filed Writ Petition No.1809 of 2012 seeking re-evaluation, dismissed on 12.12.2012. He filed SLP which was dismissed on 23.07.2013. Thereafter, he filed Review Petition No.21 of 2018 before the High Court, which was allowed on 19.03.2018. The appellant (High Court of Tripura) then filed the present civil appeal by special leave.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
