Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Delhi Unless ex facie arbitrariness is established, the court would refrain from interfering with the decision of an examination body MANU/DE/6721/2023 - (04 Oct 2023) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Abhishek Singh Vs. Honble High Court of Delhi</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Petitioner, pursuant to a notice, inviting applications for filling up sixteen vacancies by way of direct recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service ('DHJS'), had applied for the same. After the said examination was conducted, the Respondent ('the DHC') published the Model Answer Keys and invited objections. According to the Petitioner, some of the questions were ex facie erroneous and he submitted his objections to the same in the manner as stipulated. 
The Petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the Model Answer Keys in respect of seven questions of the Test Booklet Series 'C'. However, the Petitioner confined present petition to assailing question no.128 of the Test Booklet Series 'C'. According to the Petitioner, the said question is vague and incapable of an answer. 
It is settled law that, an examining authority has sufficient discretion to frame the questions for evaluating the knowledge of an examinee. The scope of judicial review in matters of examination is very narrow. In Kishore Kumar v. High Court of Delhi1, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had held that,unless ex facie arbitrariness is established, the court would refrain from interfering with the decision of an examination body. 
In the present case, the Petitioner had full opportunity to object to the questions and his objections were considered. There is no allegation that, the persons examining the objections were not well versed with the subject or that their decision was motivated by any malice or mala fides. 
In similar circumstances, this Court in Vivek Kumar Yadav v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court had examined the scope of judicial review and observed that there is always a possibility that questions relating to laws may be debated, however, if the examining body is sufficiently qualified and has examined the same, no interference would be warranted unless ex facie arbitrariness is established. In the present case, present Court is unable to accept that there is any 'demonstrable arbitrariness' in including the question under challenge for examining the candidates.A number of candidates have correctly responded to the said question and any interference by this Court would unfairly prejudice the said candidates. Petition dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Examination, Judicial review, Scope</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>