NDLI: Taniya Malik Vs. The Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	2015 Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Dismissed
Headnote	Revaluation of answer-sheet and moderation of marks – Petitionerssought re-valuation of the answer-sheet of criminal law paper ofthe main examination and further sought moderation of marksobtained by the candidates in the examination of 2015 – Held:Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Singh has laid down moderation tobe appropriate where there are multiple examiners of the samesubject – Where number of candidates are limited and only oneexaminer evaluates, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformityin valuation – In instant case, it is not disputed that only oneexaminer had evaluated the same part of one subject, therefore, itwas not necessary to undertake the process of moderation – Insofarrevaluation of answer scripts are concerned, it is a settledproposition 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 examinationwas 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 thepetitioners was awarded 37% marks; whereas the required minimumwas 45% in viva voce – Total 64 candidates were called for interviewand 63 were selected – Only the said petitioner was declared failedin the viva voce examination – Petitioner contended that theprovision prescribing minimum marks for viva voce of judicialservices is unreasonable – Held: In instant case, out of 64 candidates, only one has failed in the interview – That, in fact,does not show the prejudice but is rather indicative of the fact thatperformance of the petitioner was such that in spite of the SelectionCommittee being most liberal, it did not find it appropriate to awardeven the minimum passing marks to the said candidate – Theawarding of marks by Commi ttee could not be said to beinappropriate – Furthermore, in rules, the minimum cut off isprescribed – That could not have been relaxed and moreover,relaxation is a matter of policy and considering the overallcircumstances, importance of interview, the decision not to relaxcannot be said to be unreasonable.Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015– Enhancement of marks by rounding off – Applicable or not – Asper advertisement, the candidates were required to obtain 50% marksin aggregate and 40% in each subject in the main examination tobe eligible to be called for interview – One of the petitioners hadobtained 49.9% marks and pleaded that it be rounded off to 50%and called for an interview – Held: When a particular aggregate isprescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria withoutrelaxation – It is not permissible to enhance the marks by roundingoff method to make up the minimum aggregate – Thus, the principleof rounding off method not to be applied in view of requirement toobtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for interview in theinstant case.Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015– Plea for reduction of minimum cut-off marks – As peradvertisement, the candidates were required to obtain 50% marksin aggregate and 40% in each subject in the main examination tobe eligible to be called for interview – One of the petitioners pleadedto reduce the minimum cut off marks of individual subjects from40% to 33% as she had failed only in one subject – Held: There isno fault in prescribing the minimum passing marks for written papers– It may happen in any examination that a person who is havingbetter aggregate may not fair well in one of the papers and may bedeclared ‘failed’ – That cannot be ground to order relaxation or todoubt the correctness of the evaluation process – No ground forinterference.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 168
Petitioner	Taniya Malik
Respondent	The Registrar General Of The High Court Of Delhi
SCR	[2018] 10 S.C.R. 348
Judgement Date	2018-02-16
Case Number	764

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Taniya Malik Vs. The Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi

Please Log-in to view this content

Maharashtra State Judges Association & Ors. Vs. The Registrar General, High Court, High Court of Judicature At Bombay & Anr.

N.c. Das Vs. Gauhati High Court Thr. Registrar & Ors.

Sujata Kohli Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi & Ors.

Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Ors

Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa and Anr.

Ms. X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another

Mahinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Through Registrar General &ors

Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi

Rajesh Kohli Vs. High Court of J & K and Anr.

Taniya Malik Vs. The Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi

Taniya Malik Vs. The Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Maharashtra State Judges Association & Ors. Vs. The Registrar General, High Court, High Court of Judicature At Bombay & Anr.

N.c. Das Vs. Gauhati High Court Thr. Registrar & Ors.

Sujata Kohli Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi & Ors.

Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Ors

Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa and Anr.

Ms. X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another

Mahinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Through Registrar General &ors

Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi

Rajesh Kohli Vs. High Court of J & K and Anr.

Taniya Malik Vs. The Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi