Today, 21st May, The Supreme Court declined to consider a plea requesting the re-evaluation of marks for the Punjab Judicial Services Mains Exam. The decision upholds the existing results and evaluation process. Petitioners sought re-examination of their scores, citing discrepancies.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by candidates seeking a re-evaluation of the mains written examination for the Punjab Superior Judicial Service examination for the year 2023-2024.
The bench, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Karol, questioned the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, as the petitioners had the option to approach the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Article 226 to seek redress.
Read Also: Supreme Court: Balancing Qualification and Experience| MP Judicial Service
The Court asked, Advocate Siddhartha Jha, representing the petitioners,
“Why file an Article 32 petition? Doesn’t the High Court have the authority to order a re-evaluation? You can’t resort to Article 226,”
Advocate Jha replied,
“The High Court lacks such power. This court has consistently upheld this stance,”
Justice Narasimha asserted,
“That’s incorrect. We don’t concur with that. We cannot intervene under Article 32. You should approach the High Court. We’re dismissing this. You haven’t convinced us about the maintainability,”
Subsequently, the Court granted permission for the petitioner to withdraw the petition.
The petitioners in this case sought a re-evaluation of the marks obtained in the Punjab Superior Judicial Services-Mains Written Examination for the year 2024, the results of which were declared on May 2.
The petitioners have relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pranav Verma v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2019) and Tanya Malik v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi (2018) to support their plea.
When the maintainability of the plea was questioned, the Advocate Jha argued that since there is no specific provision for re-evaluation under the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules of 2007, the High Court cannot order a re-evaluation under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, Jha persuaded the Supreme Court to hear the plea, despite the absence of a specific provision for re-evaluation in the rules.
Justice Karol as the petitioner, permitted to withdraw the plea, declared that,
“You’re just spinning your wheels here. Catch a Shatabdi and head straight to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. We’ve granted you the freedom to do so. Dismissed upon withdrawal,”
Read Case: [Anjali Khosla and Another v. Honourable High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh]
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
