W.P.(C)/337/2013 of BHUPENDER PAL SHARMA Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 337/2013

Reservedon: 22"''January, 2013%DateofDecision: 28"'January, 2013

Bhupender Pal Sharma'

....Petitioner

ThroughMr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate withMr. Rishab Wadhwa andMr. Deepak Anand, Advocates.

Versus

High Court of Delhi through Registrar General... .Respondent

ThroughMr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate with

Mr. Chetan Lokur and

Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

For detailed order see W.P. (C) 207/2013 titled Rajesh Kumar

Verma Vs. High Court ofDelhi through Registrar General pronouncedtoday.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

JUDGE

JANUARY 28"', 2013

kkb

Ay(SIDDMARTH MRIDUL)'JUDGE

Signature Not Verified

1N 11-IE HIGH COURT OF DEL0.1 AT NEW DELHIWR.ri\PETnTON(CIVIL) .NO. 207/2013

H-WR.ri\PETnTON

Reserved on: 21^' January, 2013Date of Decision:January, 2013

Rajesh Kumar Verma....Petitioner•"ThroughIN PERSON

Versus

+WRfT PETITION

(CIVIL) NO. 337/2013

CORAM:HON'Bt.E MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAHONVBLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDIJL

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Aforcnientionedtwo writ petitions questionthe results of Delhi.Tudicial Scrviccs Mains .Examination,2012. Interviews for sclcction arcto coiTiiTicnccon 2B"' January, 2013 and there being urgcncy, we havehoard theandto deliverouras arguments proceededjudgment, any delayi,would have causcd prejudiceto the petitionersand an interim orderthatWi^c) No, 7.07/201.3&337/2013P^ge 1of17

the two petitionersand others similarly situated siiould be called forinterview would have created its own complicationsor stay orderwould have upset the entire schedule causing prejudice to others. Inthese circumstanceswe have dispensedwith the requirementof counteraffidavit and the respondents have been permitted to rely upondata/figuresfurnishedin form of chart.

2.Rajesh Kumar Verma,who arguedthe writ petitionin person,hassubmitted that he had secured marks in three viz. qualifying papersGenerall<aiowledgeand Language(115 out of250), CriminalLaw (104. out of 200) and Civil Law-ll (103.5 out of 200), but could not qualifyCivil Law-I in which he was awarded 53 marks out of 200. RajeshKumar Verma moved an application,under the Right to InformationAct, 2005, for inspectionofthe answerscript. On inspectionhe cametoknow that in QuestionNo.1of Part-A, Civil Law - I paper, he wasawarded '0' (zero) out of 25 marks.

3.The contentionof Rajesh Kumar Verma is that the evaluationofPart-A of Civil Law-I paper, in which he scored low marks, was donearbitrarilysince there were no guidelines,schemeofvaluationor modelanswers.Further, there was no system of supervisionor review ofassessmenti.e. marks awarded by the examiner. Ihis, accordingto him,has resultedin violationofArticle 14 ofthe Constitutionas he has beendeniedrightto fair evaluation,appearancebeforethe interviewpanelandpossible selection. Reliance is placed on the instructions, m theexaminationpaperof Civil Law-I, to the effectthat "Evenifyou do notknow the answer,you may attemptthe questionsas the testis not only ofknowledge of law but of the candidate'sanalytical skill also."Insupport of his contentions, Rajesh Kumar Verma has relied upondecisionsofthe SupremeCourtin KumariShrilekhaVidyarthiand Ors.

KState of U.P. and Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 212; F. SrinivasaRao v. J.Veeraiah and Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 63; The Institute of CharteredAccountantsofIndia v. ShaunakH. Satyaand Ors. (2011)8SCC 781and decisionof KeralaHigh Court in Dr. B.K. MadhumohanandAm.V. State ofKerala and Ors. 2000 KLJ 911.Rcliancewas also placed Ihc decisionof the Court in SunilKumarSharmaupon BombayHighand Ors. v. UniversityofBombayandAnr. 1987 MhlJ 124, to contendthat there is difference between re-evaluationof examinationpaper,which may not be permissibleunlessthere is arule or policyto the saideffect,and cases where the examineror the examinationresultsitselfarefaulty becausethe examinerhas not followedcertainbasicparametersorstandard oi' assessment.lie has contended that his ease falls into thelatter category.

4.On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate, appearing forBhupenderPal Sharma,has impelledthat it is opento the court to dhectre-evaluationor rechecldngof answer-sheetswhen the rules, policy orterms of examination are silent.Reliance has been placed on thejudgmentofthis Courtin WritPetition(Civil)No. 2636/2012titledSalilMaheshwari v. High Court of Delhi, through Registrar General,decidedon 4^'' May, 2012.

5.It was accentuatedthat the candidatein question,BhupenderPalSharma, had secured 79 marks out of 200 marks in Civil Law-I and,therefore,becauseofone mark, has failed to qualifyfor the interview,inspiteofsecuringrequisitemarks in otherwrittenpapers. It is submittedthat the said candidatehas been awarded'0' (zero)mark in QuestionNo.4(b), out of 12.5 marks allocatedto the said question.

6.Another submission made is that 205 candidates, wlio were*^•declared as quahfied in 2"^/3"' Ust, publishedon 30^'^ May, 2012, havebeen discriminated against because they were asked to appear in theMain SubjectiveWritten Examinationmerely eight days thereafter,on9"' and lO"' June, 2012.Therefore, the other 346 candidates, whosenames were publishedon 21'' April, 2012, benefitedby gaining longerlime to for the Main Written Examination. The prepare Subjectivediscriminationand lack of preparationtime is apparent,as it resultedinjust 15 out of 215 candidatesqualifyingfor the interview,whereas 61out of 346 candidatesqualifiedfor interviewfrom the earlierlist.

7.In the writ petition,filed by BhupendcrKumar Sharma,reliancehas been placed upon decision of Kerala High Court in B.K.Madhumohan (supra) and the decision of Supreme Court in F.SrinivasaRao (supra) and SanchitBansal&Anr. v. JointAdmissionBoard& Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 8520/2011 (AIR 2012 SC 214) andSanjaySingh &Anr, v. U.P. PublicServiceCommission,Allahabad&Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720.

8.In order to decide the above contentions,certain basic facts maybe noticed. Recruitmentofjudicialofficersto Delhi JudicialServiceisheld as thecriteriaandunderthe per procedure, qualificationsprescribedDelhi JudicialServiceRule, 1970. The said rules (See Appendixto theRules) prescribea three stages process. In the first stage, the eligiblecandidatesappearin the objectivetype multiplechoiceexammationand,on the basis of their scores, qualify to appear in the Delhi JudicialService Mains Written lixaminafion.This written examination is with answers and consists of four distinctsubjective long papers,GeneralKnowledge&language,CivilEaw-I, Civil Law-IIand CriminalLaw. Generalcandidateswho secure 50% marks in aggregateand 40%

\A/P(C) No. 207/2013&337/2013

marks in cach paper and 45% marks in aggregate and 35%.marlcsin each if he/she to the reserved for thepaper, belongs category, qualifyinterview.

9.Tlie Civil Law-I paper, in the present case, consisted of two parts'Part-A' and 'Part-B'.The cumulative marks, obtained in both the parts,have been taken into consideration for deciding whether the minimumcriteria, as mentioned in the rules,are satisfied by the candidate.

10.Writ petition, filed by Rajesh Kumar Verma, was listed beforeanother Bench and transferred to be listed before this Bench on 16""January,2013. On the said date, the respondentsenteredappearance,onadvancenotice, and their counselwas directedto place on recorddetailswhich were relevant and material, in form of data.It was also directed,that to the extent permittedand permissiblein law, the said details ordata shall be furnished to the petitioner.

11.The respondentson the next date i.e. 21^' January, 2013, placedbefore us, chart setting out data required in order to decide thebefore us. I'or the sake ofwe arecontroversy completeness, producingthe entire chart:-

"DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE MAIN EXAM (WRITTEN)HELD ON 9''"'"' AND lO'''" .lUNE,2012

PAPER - CIVIL LAW-I

The said figures/datawere made availableto the learnedcounsel for Bhupender Pa] Sharma whose, writ petition came up forhearingbeforeus on 22"'"'January,2013.

12.In addition to the said data, the respondentshave filed detailedchart with the name of the candidates,their categoryand the marksawarded to each question in Civil Law-I paper, for all candidates whoappeared in the Delhi Judicial Service Main Written Examination, heldon June, 2012.To maintain secrecy and confidentiality,this data wasnot provided to the two petitioners. However, the chart, filed in supportof the data/figures quoted above, validates the data quoted above. Thesaid chart will be kept on record in sealed cover by the RegistrarGeneral.

13.At this stage, we would first like to deal with the contentionraisedby the petitioner Bhupender Pal Sharma that re-evaluation andrecheckingof the question4(b), in whichthe said petitionerhad secured'0' zero marks out of 12.5 marks, should be permitted. It is an acceptedand admitted position that the rules and the terms, on which theexamination was held, are silent regarding re-evaluation.The petitionerpropels that silence does not amount to negative command and,therefore, does not bar or prohibit re-evaluation. We reject the saidcontention. The issue in questionis not res integm and has been settledby the Supreme Court in several decisions.In Maharashtra StateBoard of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v.Paritosh Bkupesh Kurmarsheth and others. AIR 1984 SC 1543, theSupremeCourt has held that directionfor re-evaluationcannotbe issuedwhen there is no provisionor absenceof provisionfor re-evaluation. Inother words, there must be specific provision for re-evaluation onmerits before it can be directed. The Supreme Court further held that adecisionorin rules that noverificationorpolicy provisions re-checking,re-evaluationwill be permitted,cannot be challengedon the ground ofarbitrariness or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, unless it can

be shown that the poUcy itself was in violation of some statutoryprovision. It was observed:-

"It is exclusively within the province of the legislatureand its delegateto determine,as matter of policy, how theprovisionsof the Statutecan best be implementedand whatmeasures, substantive as well as procedural would have tobe incorporated in the rules or regulations for theefficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of theAct

The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom ofthe policy evolved by the legislatureand the subordinateregulation-makingbody. It may bea wise policywhichwillfully effectuatethe purpose of the enactmentor it may belacking in effectivenessand hence callingfor revisionandimprovement.Butanydrawbacks • inthepolicyincorporatedin rule or regulationwill not render it ultravires and the Court cannot strike it down on the groundthat, in-its opinion,it is not wise or prudentpolicy,butiseven foolish one, and that it will not really serve toeffectuate the purposes of the Act...."

14.A more categoricalexpositionon the said principleis elucidatedin Pmmod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public ServiceCommission, Patna tS: Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4116:-

"7Under the relevant rules of the Commission,there is no provisionwhereina candidatemay beentitledtoask for re-evolutionof his answer-book.There is aprovisionfor scrutiny only wherein the answer-booksareseen for the purpose of checking whether ail the answersgiven by candidate have been examined and whetherthere has been any mistakein the totalingof marks of eachquestion and noting them correctlyon the first cover pageof" the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutinyno mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellantin the General Science paper. In the absence of anyprovisionfor re-evaluationofanswer-booksin the relevantrules, no candidate in an examinationhas got any rightwhatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks."

15. • similarview has been taken Dr. Muneeh Ul Rehman Haroon& Ors. V. GovernmentofJammiiand KashmirState & Ors. AIR 1984SC 1585; BoardofSecondaryEducation v. PravasRanjan Panda &

WP(C) No. 207/2013&337/2013

Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383; President, Board of Secondary Education,On'ssa & Anr.v. D. SuvankarAnr.(2007)1 SCC 603; TheSecretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Educationv.Ayan Das & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3098; and Sahiti & Ors. v. Chancellor,Dr. N.T.R. University of-Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599.

16.Referringto the aforesaiddecisions,the Supreme Court in CivilAppeal Nos. 907/2006 and 897/2006 titled H.P. Public ServiceCommissionv. Mukesh Thakur &. Anr. decidedon 25'"'^ May, 2010, setaside the judgment and order of High Court and allowed the appealsobserving that in the absence of any provision under the Statute orthe court should not direct re-Stcitutory Rules/Regulations, generallyevaluation.

17.The decision of this Court in the case of Salil Maheshwari(supra) and Gunjan Sinha Jain v. High Court of Delhi throughRegistrarGeneral, WP (Civil)No. 449/2012,anotherconnectedmatterdecided on 9"' April, 2012, are clearly distinguishableand are notcontrary to the principle or ratio stated above.Judgment in SalilMaheshwari's case (supra) simply refers to the decision in GunjanSinha Jain's case (supra). In Gunjan Sinha Jain's case, DivisionBench of this Court noticcd dcfccts in some of the objective questionsand the suggestedcorrect answers. The answers had to be marked bypcncil for the puiposeofOpticalMark Recognition(OMR). It was, inthese circumstances that certain directions were issued in paragraphs 75,76 and 77 of the judgment,after noticingthat the rules stipulatedthatminimum •qualifying marks must be secured and the number ofcandidates,to be admittedin the mains examination,shouldnot be morethan 10 times the total number of vacanciesadvertised. Accordingly,some directionswere issued and the conditionof permittingappearing

candidatesto be onl}' 10 times the seats was diluted.This was apragmaticsolutionto the problemwhichhadarisen.In SalilMaheshwari'scase (supra), it was noticed that the petitioner therein, onthe basis of computation of marks, pursuant to decision in Gunjan SinhaJain's case (supra), had got 118.5 marks. However, the list of top 230candidates had ended at 122.5 marks and, therefore, the writ petition ofSalil Maheshwariwas dismissed.

18.We do not think that the judgment in the case of Gunjan SinhaJain'scase (supra),postulates re-evaluation or re-examination of asingle answer or the entire paper.The said judgment was given in apeculiarsituation, where some questionswere ambiguousand debatable,or multiple choices were incorrect or the' answers given in the answersheet were incorrect.The situation was entirely different.Similarly, inthe case of Siinil Kumar Sharma'scase (supra), the Bombay HighCourt dealt with peculiar factual matrix.729 students had appearedand their papers in question were checked by 3 different examiners. Oneexaminerhad checked and awarded marks to 22 candidates.He failedthe entire lot of 22 candidates whose papers were checked by him. Theywere awarded marks between 4% to 19%.The High Court allowed thewrit observing that there was violation of two statutory paragraphswhich stipulated that the Chairman shall discuss the synoptic answerswith his examinersto ensure uniformstandardin assessmentand theChairman/ Senior Examiner had the right to review the assessment doneby the examiner and could issue instructionsto the examinerto reviewor reassesstheanswer-sheet.Hieexaminerwasto abideby theinstructions. The statutory paragraphs were important as they preventeddiscrimination when the answer papers were checked by differentexaminers. Violation of the said paragraphs was the cornerstone of the

said decision.In Sanchit Bansal(supm)it has been observed thatCourtcan interfereand directre-evaluationof the performanceetc.where, (i) there is violation of any enactment, statutory Rules andRegulations;(ii) mala fides or ulteriormotivesto assist or enableprivategain to someone or cause prejudiceto anyone; or where the procedureadopted is arbitrary and capricious. The procedure is arbitrary andcapricious when it is illogical and whimsical, something without anyreasonable explanation.

• 19.In the present case, the answer sheets of Part-A of Civil Law-I,• have been examined by one examiner and not by multiple or severalexaminers.The said examiner has uniformly applied the same standardwhile checkingthe answersof all the candidates.The chartquoted,-aboveshows that, out of 453 candidates, 265 candidates passed Civil Law-I and 188 candidateshave failed. Substantialnumberof candidatespaperhave clearedthe and secured marks.In Part-A of the said paper good the maximum mark secured candidate is 76% and thepaper, byminimum marks secured is 7. In Part-B of the paper, which was checkedby different examiner, maximum marks secured is 73% and theminimum marlcs secured is 4%.Even in Part-B examination,severalcandidates have secured '0' zero marks in respect of their answers. Thenumber of candidates securing '0' zero marks in Part-A paper may bemore, but this cannotbe groundto re-examineor re-cvaluatethe entirepaper or even specific answers.If we allow re-examinationor re-cvaluationoi" the answer in one case or even onethe paper, question,said exercise may have to be completedacross the board, in all caseswhere candidates have secured '0' zero or one, two or low marks. Noparticularcandidatecan be given preference. /Fhus, if the plea ofthepetitioner is accepted, it will lead to unpalatable and incongruous

situation which should be avoid. Rajesh Kumar Verma has secured 53marks out of 200 in Civil Law Paper 1 and he is short by 17 marks. Thedifference is substantial in his case. In Bhupender Pal Sharma's case thedifference be of one mark and may only but this by itself as noticedclucidatcd below cannot be ground to direct re-evaluation or awardgracc marks. Given the intensecompetition,it is not uncommonto comeacross cases where the differencebetweena selectedand unselectedcandidateis in fraction or less than one mark.

20.In matters of examination, especially competitive examination forselectionjudicial interferenceshould be exercisedwith care and gravecaution. Such kind of intrusion is rare. Wc do not thinlc that presentcasewarrantsinterferenceand the valuationof marksawardin the twopapers/answersare so glaring,absurd or demonstrablyun-consciousablethat interference is called for. Answers papers of the two petitionerswere in fact shownto us. The presentcases do not fall underthe limitedexceptionscarvedout in SanchitBansal'sCase (supra).Any interferencewill lead to and indefmite gross uncertainty besides creating utterconfusion,'llie positionwhichhas been highlightedand explainedby theSupremeCourtinMaharashtraStateBoard's case (supra).

21.The contentionof BhupenderPal Sharmathat he should be givenone mark, does not have any merit. We noticedthat as perthe chart,fivecandidates have missed the qualifyingmark by one and another fivecandidatesby two marks. There is no provisionfor givingbonus marksor additional marks to any candidate. It will be improper and incoiTectto give bonus mark or even upgrade the marks. In Registrar,RajivGandhi Universityof HealthSciences,Bangalorev. G. HemlathaandOrs.., (2012)8 SCC 568 it was held:

"12. No provision of any statute or any rules framedthereunder have been shown to us, which permit rounding-off of ehgibihty criteria prescribed for the quahfyingexaminationforadmissiontothePGcourseinMSc(Nursing). When the ehgibility criteria is prescribed in aquahfyingexamination,it must be strictlyadheredto. Anydilution or tamperingwith it will work injustice on othercandidates. The Division Bench of the High Court erred inholding that the learned Single Judge was right inrounding-offof 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent1 eligiblefor admissionto the PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible."

The said judgmentalso makes referenceto an earlierdecisioninOrissa Service Public Commission v. Rupashri Chaudhary, (2011) 8see 108, thatneithergrace marksnor roundingoffis permissibleunlessthere is permissibleterm under which the examinationswere held. Inthe said case, the candidatein questionhad securedqualifyingmarks ineach individual but inhad 44.93% marks and not 45%paper aggregatemarks as stipulatedin the rules. The differencewas only 0.07% but theappeal tiled was allowed by the SupremeCourt and the judgmentoftheHigh Court was. set aside, observing that rounding off or additionalmarks could not have been given.

22.In Umesh Chand Shukla v. UOI, AIR 1985 SC 1351, FullCourt resolution of the High Court directingmoderationby awarding2marks in each to all candidateswascommented paper adverselyuponand the moderation done was struck down'.Exercise of power ofmoderationwas likelyto createa feelingof discriminationin the processof selection and would violate principle of.equality and may lead toarbitrariness. There might be hard cases, but hard cases cannot beallowed to make bad law.

23.In RajinderKumarAggarwalv. High Court ofDelhi andAnr.,1993 (25) DRJ 602, DivisionBench ofthis court examiningthe rules,has held that there is no provision for reevaluationor moderationof

WP(C) No. 207/2013&337/2013

answer-sheets. In the said case, the petitioner therein had secured onemarlc less forin one ofthebut had obtainedsufficient qualifying, papers,marks in other papers. The petitionertherein had made referenceto af\ill Court Resolution. The said contention was rejected, after referringto order dated 26"' July, 1985 passed by the Supreme Court in anapplicationin Writ PetitionNo. 3805/1985dated 26"' July, 1985, whichfor the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-

"At the hearing of the above writ petition Mr. F.S.Nariman,learnedcounselfor ShriRajan Sharma,one of thecandidatesselectedfortheDelhiJudicialServiceExamination held in the year 1984, who has been impleaded as respondentin this case submits fairly and wethink rightly that in the absence of an express rule for revaluationit was not possiblefor the examiningbody to getone of the answer books of Shri Rajan Sharma revalued. Inthe absence of 18 marks which were added at thereevaluation, Shri Rajan Sharma would not have beeneligiblefor the viva voce examinationeventhoughinsomeof the papers at the examination,he had done well. ShriRajan Sharma, Therefore, withdraws his application forappointmentto the Delhi Judicial Service. We appreciatethe stand rightlytaken by Sim Rajan Sharmain this Court.In view of the above we direct that the name of Shri RajanSharma would not be consideredby the examiningbody forthe purposeofapp.ointnientatthe 1984examination.

E.S .Venkataramahia,J.

I'he DivisionBench rejectedthe contentionthat the petitionerhadexcellentacademicrecord and had securedFirst Divisionin LL.B. andthat 1(one) gracemark shouldbe given. Similarview has beentakeninVipinSandujav. Registrar,DelhiHigh Court, 85 (2000)DLl 471.

24.The contention that the absence of moderation or guidelines,model answers results in arbitrarycheckingby the examinerhas to berejectedas unsustainableand meritless. The answer sheets relatingto

WP(C) No. 207/2013&337/2013

Part-A were examined by one single examiner and not by differentexaminers.The rules do not stipulate that there should be modelanswers or mandatory guidelines, in writing, for assessment.Theanswerhave been checked examinerswho arewellpapersby proficient,conversant and have knowledge of the subjects.The examination, in'question, is for appointment to Delhi Judicial Service and is acompetitiveexaminationand not collegeor school examination. Highstandardsare requiredand justified.The checkingand allottingof marks,for Part-A,may be strict,but this does not mean that Courtcan interferein exerciseof its jurisdictionunder Article226 of the Constitution. Inmatters of evaluation by experts and the standards which should beadoptedand applied,the courts cannotsubstituteor adornthe role oftheexaminer. It cannot substitute its own opinion regarding what markscould or should have been awarded, as the result.Interference is rareand justifiedonly when there is blatantmiscarriageofjusticeas set outin Sanchit Bansal's case (supra). The following observationsin H.P.Public Service Commission (supra), are apposite:"19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for theHigh Court to examine the question paper and answersheets itself, particularly, when the Commission' hadassessed the inter-se merit of the.candidates.If there was adiscrepancyin franiing the question of evaluationof theanswer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for theexamination and not for respondent No. 1 only.It is amatter of chance that the High Court was examining theanswer sheets relating to law.Had it been other subjectslike physics,chemistryand mathematics,we are unable tounderstand as to whether such course have been adoptedby the High Court."

25.In view of what we have stated above, we need not specificallydeal with the decisions relied upon by the petitioner Rajesh KumarVcrma, relating to principle of arbitrariness,'transparencyetc. in the

cases of Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra). In'F. Srinivasa Rao's case(supra),abettercandidatewith the B.Com degreeand longerexperiencewas ignored on the ground that the said aspects cannot be taken intoconsiderationfor theofwith the selectedcandidate purposecomparisonthough they were relevantfor the puipose of marks. Selectionwas byinterview and the allegation was that the interviewwas farce.TheSupremeCourtwhileallowingthe appealobservedthat in the absenceofguidelines,the selectionwas left to the whims of the individualofficeithe interviewwho had unbridled This is not so in theholdingpowers.present case as there was written examinationand marks have beenawarded examiners. The and answer are by question papers papersavailable.The decision in Dr. BJC Madhumohan (supra), isdistinguishablefor the reason, in the said case the question settersthemselves admitted that several questions should be deleted as therewere no correct choices in the answer booklet and thewere questionscontroversial.It is in this context,it was observedthat capriciousacts ofexaminersare not immune from interferenceof the court. Ihis was acase of blatant miscarriage of justice.

26.The contentionraised by BhupenderPal Sharmaregardinglackofpreparationtime and discrimination,as there were two separatelists andlast and second list came out eight days before the examination,has tobe rejected.Having participatedin the examination and taken thechance, the candidate cannot be allowed to object to the date ofexaminationor submitthat the examinationshouldhave beenpostponed.The said plea is unacceptable and would set at naught the entireexaminationprocess. It was open to the candidates,who had fded CivilAppealNo. 4794/2012,beforethe SupremeCourtto raisethe said plea.We note here that list of 205 candidatesdated 30 2012 may only May,

was circLilatcd pursuantto the orderof" the SupremeCourtin thejudgment dated 28"' May,'2012.By that time, the date of writtenexamina;tion in June, 2012 had already been notified and this was Imownto all candidates,including the petitioners.Similar contentionswereraised in WP(C) No. 3667/2012Vivek Tomar v. the RegistrarGeneral,High Court of Delhi and WP(C) 3668/2012 Archana Aggarwal v. theRegistrar General High Court of Delhi, but were rejected vide orderdated 6"^ June, 2012, recordingthatthe SupremeCourtwhilepassingtheorder dated 28^' May, 2012, did not considerit necessaryto extendthedate for conducting the examination.

27.In view of the aforesaid position, the writ petitions are dismissed.No Costs.

(SANJIV KHANNA)JUDGE

iRTH MRIDUL)•JUDGE

JANUARY^^,2013klcb^