W.P.(C)/7346/2020 of SHIVNATH TRIPATHI Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P. (C) 7346/2020

SHIVNATH TRIPATHI

Through:

..... Petitioner

Petitioner in person.

versus

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR.

...... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate with Mr.Naman Jain, Advocate and Mr.Manish Aggarwal, JR (Examination).

Date of Decision: 27[th] November, 2020

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

J U M N T

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1.The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2.Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to modify answers to Question 7, Question 53, Question 78, and to delete Question 134 of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Service Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) held on 2[nd] February 2020.

3.The impugned questions and the correct answers in bold are reproduced hereinbelow:-

Q.7. ‘A’ is married and is having one child. A’s husband ‘B’ does not live with her. ‘C’ on false promise to marry ‘A’ makes physical

W.P (C) No.7346/2020

Page 1 of 16

relationship with her and later refused to marry.

(1)‘C’ has committee the offence of rape.

(2)‘C’ has not committed the offence of rape.

(3)‘C’ has committed the offence of sexual assault.

(4)‘C’ has committed the offence under Section 494 of Indian

Penal Code.

Q. 53 Company ‘A’ is the registered trademark holder of hte mark

‘VITE’ specifically in respect of pens. Company ‘B’ adopts the name

‘VITE’ in respect of ink. The adoption by company ‘B’ constitutes

(1)Infringement

(2)Passing of

(3)Both infringement and Passing off (4)Neither infringement nor passing off” (4)Neither infringement nor passing off”

“Q.78. While sentencing the accused in an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, the relevant criteria is Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, the relevant criteria is

(1)Reformation

(2)Deterrence & Denunciation

(3)Both (1) & (2)

(4)None of the above”

“Q.134. Decision rendered in proceeding under Section 372, Indian Succession Act, 1925 Indian Succession Act, 1925

(1)is summary in nature

(2)does not finally decide the rights of the parties

(3)does not bar the trial of the same question in any other

proceedings between the same parties

(4)All of above”

4.Petitioner states that for question no.78, the correct answer should be option “(3)”. He submits that the Supreme Court in K. P. Singh vs. State of Delhi [Criminal Appeal No. 1264 of 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 444 of 2015] while dealing with an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act took note of ‘reformative’ aspect of punishment and consequently, according to him the punishment under Prevention of Corruption

Page 2 of 16

Act is reformatory as well. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.G. Goswami vs. Delhi Administration,(1974) 3 SCC 85.

5.Petitioner in person vehemently states that since there are two possible correct answers to question no. 78, the petitioner cannot be penalized. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in Sumit Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and Anr. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2818 wherein it has been held as under: -

“11. We have to apply the aforesaid standard or test when we examine the contentions of the two petitioners. In other words, only when we are convinced that the answer key is “demonstrably wrong” in the opinion of reasonable body of persons well-versed with the subject, will it be permissible to exercise power of judicial review. Albeit, in cases where the answer key is indeed incorrect or more than one key to the answer could be correct, the candidates should not be penalized for answers at variance with the key. The expression “demonstrably wrong” and the clapham omnibus standard or test on the second aspect (i.e. more than one correct key) is noticeably the corner stone of the said principle. While applying the said test, the Court should keep in mind that the answer key should be presumed as correct and should not be treated as incorrect on mere doubt.”

6.He further states that for question no.7, the correct answer should be option “(1)”. He submits that the question of rape or no rape cannot be decided on the given facts of the question as there may be different outcome of the case depending on age, income, economic status, demographic status, social status or education of woman. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2019) 13 SCC 1and Pramod Suryabhyan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608.

Page 3 of 16

7.As far as question no.53 is concerned, he states that the correct answer should be “(1)”, as mere registration of trade mark does not entitle person to remedy of passing off as it is not stated in the Question that plaintiff company had any reputation or goodwill.

8.He states that question no.134 ought to be deleted because the proceeding under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is ‘summary’ according to Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

9.Petitioner submits that the inaction of the respondents in not processing petitioner’s objection to the answer key and subsequent notices have caused grave injustice to the petitioner. He further submits that no reason has been assigned for not modifying or deleting the answers provided by respondents.

10.This Court, vide order dated 22[nd] October, 2020, had directed the present writ petition to be placed before the Examination-cum-Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee of Hon’ble Judges and its comments/minutes were required to be placed before this Court.

11.In pursuance to the said order, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record the minutes of the meeting of Examination-cum-Judicial thEducation and Training Programme Committee held on 19 November, 2020 whereby the comments of the petitioner in respect of four impugned questions have been considered and the Committee has opined as under:-

Page 4 of 16

Page 5 of 16

Page 6 of 16

Page 7 of 16

Page 8 of 16

Page 9 of 16

Page 10 of 16

(1)is summary in nature (2)does not finally decide the rights of the parties (3)does not bar the trial of the same question in any other proceedings between the same parties (4)All of the above” DecisionAs per the answer key, the correct answer is (4).The Committee is of the opinion that this is the correct option. The reasoning for the same is set out below: ReasonsProceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate is not for the purpose of adjudication of any claims between the legal heirs. Such application is made under Section 372. succession certificate cannot be granted in respect of any debt or security for which letters of administration or probate is required. Under Section 373, the proceedings are summary in nature. If there are any questions of fact and law, which are intricate and difficult to determine, the District Judge only takes prima facie view as to which person has the best title. Since the proceedings are summary in nature, Section 387 specifically stipulates that there would be no bar to conduct trial on the same question in any suit or proceedings between the same parties. Thus, the correct answer is (4) i.e. All of the above.

Page 11 of 16

Page 12 of 16

12.Having heard the parties, this Court is of the view that it is essential to outline the scope of Court interference with the results of an examination. The

Page 13 of 16

Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357, while discussing the law regarding judicial interference with the results of an examination has held as under:-

“18. complete hands-off or no-interference approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713] nor has it been suggested in any other decision of this Court—the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to very limited extent.

30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that material error has been committed;

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

Page 14 of 16

30.5. In the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

(emphasis supplied)

13.This Court is of the view that the petitioner has sought to reap the benefit of the observations of this Court in Sumit Kumar vs High Court of Delhi (supra) without actually following the standard/test of judicial review discussed thereunder.

14.The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, after discussing several judgments of the Supreme Court on the same matter, held that candidate could not be penalized for answers at variance with the key only if the answer key was proven to be incorrect beyond doubt. However, it is relevant to note that according to the said judgment, an answer key cannot be disregarded as being incorrect merely on doubt. The Court had reiterated the settled law that there is always presumption of correctness regarding the answer key and it may be subject to judicial review only when it is “demonstrably wrong” i.e. it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct.

15.In another case being High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, (2019) 16 SCC 663 the Supreme Courthas held as under:-

“23. ....... Even in the judgment of this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. Rahul Singh (2018) 2 SCC 357 which according to the first respondent forms the basis of the High Court's interference though does not expressly stated so, what the Court has laid down is that the -Court may permit revaluation inter alia only if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or by process of rationalisation and only in rare or exceptional cases on the commission of material error. ......”

(emphasis supplied)

Page 15 of 16

16.In the present case, the Examination-cum-Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee has considered the queries raised by the petitioner at length and given detailed reasons as to why the impugned answer key is the single, objective, correct answer of the four options provided in the exam. In our view, there is no other answer that can possibly be “correct”.

17.This Court is also in complete agreement with the opinion and reasons given by the Committee in its minutes of meeting dated 19[th] November, 2020. The Committee has rightly concluded that the impugned questions have been correctly framed and answer keys provided thereto are also correct.

18.The petitioner herein has based his arguments on mere conjectures and has failed to elucidate even single valid ground to challenge the reasoning given by the Committee. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned questions and answer keys are inherently incorrect or manifest injustice has occurred in the present case.

19.Keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal scenario, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the decision of the Committee as there is no evidence of commission of any material error in the present case.

Consequently, the present writ petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed.

21.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J

NOVEMBER 27, 2020 js

SANJEEV NARULA, J

Page 16 of 16