Delhi High Court
Rayees Ahmad Shah vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 February, 2022
$~S-80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2507/2022 & CM APPLs.7177-7179/2022
RAYEES AHMAD SHAH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Syed Urfee Haider, Advocate with
Mr.Naveen Chandra, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Arti Bansal, Advocate for UOI.
% Date of Decision: 10th February, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to Respondents
No. 1 and 2 to issue a comprehensive plan/policy for evaluation/revaluation
of the answer sheets in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
('LDCE') 2020-21 for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) in the BSF under the
supervision of academicians. Petitioner also seeks directions to the
Respondents to re-evaluate the Petitioner's answer sheet as per the standard
model specimen answer key issued by the Respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in 2018-19 and 2019-20,
the Petitioner gave his first and second attempt in the LDCE for the post of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.02.2022
Sub-Inspector (GD). He states that petitioner was unsuccessful in clearing
the same.
4. He states that the Petitioner gave his third and final attempt in the
LDCE 2020-21 exam and though the Petitioner was sure that he should have
obtained a score of 145 out of a possible 200, yet he was given only 96. He
emphasises that the Petitioner had matched his answers with the model
answer key issued by the Respondents and hence he is certain that the marks
awarded to him are incorrect. He lastly states that the evaluation of the
examination papers has been outsourced by the respondents to some agency
or firm and there is no clarity regarding the credibility of the outsourced
agency.
5. In response to a pointed query, learned counsel for the petitioner
admits that there is no provision for re-evaluation in any statute, rule or
regulation issued by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 which governs the LDCE.
6. As held by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357, re-evaluation is to be allowed
only if the rules so permit. If the rules do not permit re-evaluation, as in the
present case, then the Court may permit re-evaluation only in rare and
exceptional circumstances.
7. In the present case, the only ground to seek re-evaluation is that the
petitioner had matched his answer with the model answer key and he is of
the view that the marks awarded to him are incorrect.
8. In the opinion of this Court, this personal view of the petitioner is
without any legal or factual basis. It certainly does not put the present case
in the category of rare and exceptional cases.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.02.2022
9. Further, since the examination was only of objective type questions
and the answer key has not been challenged by the petitioner, the issue
whether any academician was in-charge of evaluation of answer sheet or not
is itself an academic question!
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition and pending applications, being
bereft of merits, are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2022
TS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.02.2022
