TANIYA MALIK versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 16-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
TANIYA MALIK
v.
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 764 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015
– Revaluation of answer-sheet and moderation of marks – Petitioners
sought re-valuation of the answer-sheet of criminal law paper of
the main examination and further sought moderation of marks
obtained by the candidates in the examination of 2015 – Held:
Supreme Court in case of  Sanjay Singh has laid down moderation to
be appropriate where there are multiple examiners of the same
subject – Where number of candidates are limited and only one
examiner evaluates, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity
in valuation – In instant case, it is not disputed that only one
examiner had evaluated the same part of one subject, therefore, it
was not necessary to undertake the process of moderation – Insofar
revaluation of answer scripts are concerned, it is a settled
proposition of law that in the absence of provision for re-evaluation,
it cannot be ordered – Accordingly, for the examination in question,
in the absence of provision for revaluation when the examination
was held, it could not be resorted to – Delhi Judicial Services Rules,
1970 – Constitution of India – Art.32.
Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015
– Minimum marks for viva voice – Reasonability of – One of the
petitioners was awarded 37% marks; whereas the required minimum
was 45% in viva voce – Total 64 candidates were called for interview
and 63 were selected – Only the said petitioner was declared failed
in the viva voce examination – Petitioner contended that the
provision prescribing minimum marks for viva voce of judicial
services is unreasonable – Held: In instant case, out of 64
[2018]  10  S.C.R. 348
348
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
349
candidates, only one has failed in the interview – That, in fact,
does not show the prejudice but is rather indicative of the fact that
performance of the petitioner was such that in spite of the Selection
Committee being most liberal, it did not find it appropriate to award
even the minimum passing marks to the said candidate – The
awarding of marks by Committee could not be said to be
inappropriate – Furthermore, in rules, the minimum cut off is
prescribed – That could not have been relaxed and moreover,
relaxation is a matter of policy and considering the overall
circumstances, importance of interview, the decision not to relax
cannot be said to be unreasonable.
Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015
– Enhancement of marks by rounding off – Applicable or not – As
per advertisement, the candidates were required to obtain 50% marks
in aggregate and 40% in each subject in the main examination to
be eligible to be called for interview – One of the petitioners had
obtained 49.9% marks and pleaded that it be rounded off to 50%
and called for an interview – Held: When a particular aggregate is
prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria without
relaxation – It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding
off method to make up the minimum aggregate – Thus, the principle
of rounding off method not to be applied in view of requirement to
obtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for interview in the
instant case.
Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015
– Plea for reduction of minimum cut-off marks – As per
advertisement, the candidates were required to obtain 50% marks
in aggregate and 40% in each subject in the main examination to
be eligible to be called for interview – One of the petitioners pleaded
to reduce the minimum cut off marks of individual subjects from
40% to 33% as she had failed only in one subject – Held: There is
no fault in prescribing the minimum passing marks for written papers
– It may happen in any examination that a person who is having
better aggregate may not fair well in one of the papers and may be
declared ‘failed’ – That cannot be ground to order relaxation or to
doubt the correctness of the evaluation process – No ground for
interference.
TANIYA MALIK v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH
COURT OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: Whether moderation is required to be ordered.
1.1 Moderation is an appropriate method to bring about
uniformity in evaluation. When several e

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