Summary
The High Court’s review order directing reevaluation of judicial-service examination papers was set aside. Without a rule allowing reevaluation, a candidate had no right to demand it, although constitutional relief could remain available for an unmistakable material error in a rare and exceptional case. The nearly five-year delay, intervening selections and limits of review made relief inappropriate here. The Court did not decide against review solely because the earlier SLP had been dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly directed reevaluation through a delayed review petition despite absence of a reevaluation rule.
- Whether dismissal of the earlier SLP alone required rejection of review.
Held
- Given conflicting precedents already referred to a larger Bench, the Court did not allow the appeal simply because review was sought after dismissal of the earlier SLP. (¶ 10–12)
- Absence of a reevaluation provision meant no legal right to demand it. Article 226 nevertheless retained a narrowly exceptional role where material error was demonstrated clearly without inferential reasoning and no doubt existed about the correct answer; doubt favoured the examining authority. (¶ 13–21)
- Condonation of review delay did not remove the discretionary significance of nearly five years passing and fresh selections intervening. Review was not a rehearing, and grievances concerning other papers could not be revived in that manner after the earlier adjudication. (¶ 22)
- The disputed answers did not justify this review relief. One depended on judicial interpretation beyond the provision’s wording, while correctness of a subjective answer did not automatically entitle the candidate to full marks. The Court ultimately rested its decision on the absence of a rule-based right and the procedural and factual circumstances. (¶ 23–31)
Result
Appeal allowed; reevaluation order set aside and High Court review petition dismissed. No order as to costs.