HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA THROUGH THE REGISTRAR GENERAL versus TIRTHA SARATHI MUKHERJEE & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 06-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
692                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA THROUGH
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
v.
TIRTHA SARATHI MUKHERJEE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 06, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
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
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 692
692
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
693
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]
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA THR. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
v. TIRTHA SARATHI MUKHERJEE & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
694                    SUPRE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.