Bar & Bench: New Delhi: Saturday, July 22, 2017.
The Delhi
High Court has dismissed a petition filed by one Ravi Chandra Prakash
challenging Regulation 12 of Regulations regarding Advocates-on-Record Examination
which bars re-evaluation of answer sheets in Supreme Court AoR exam.
A Division
Bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Anu Malhotra turned down
the challenge on the ground that the challenge is devoid of merits and is an
afterthought after the petitioner failed to qualify.
The Supreme
Court AoR exam is governed by Regulations titled “The Regulation Regarding AOR
Examination”. These Regulations have been framed by the Supreme Court in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order IV of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
The
petitioner is a practising advocate in Delhi with 12 years’ experience at the
Bar. He unsuccessfully participated in the AOR Examinations held in 2010, 2011,
2012 and 2013. He then took a 2-year break to prepare for the exam and gave a
shot at the AoR Exam, 2016. The significance of this attempt was that, in terms
of Regulation 11(iv) of the Advocate on Record Regulations, the attempt in 2016
was the fifth and therefore, the last attempt available to the petitioner for
becoming an AOR. He was, however, unsuccessful.
The
petitioner then obtained his answer sheets through RTI Act and learned that he
was awarded only 52.5 marks in Paper I Supreme Court Practice and Procedure. He
needed only 11.5 marks more, to qualify and he was of the opinion that the
evaluation of his answer sheets was not effectively undertaken. The petitioner
also submitted that he got an unbiased and objective assessment of his answer
sheets by Senior Advocates, practising before the Supreme Court of India and
that they were of the opinion that the petitioner deserved to be awarded much
higher marks in these papers and ought to have been granted more than the 11.5
marks which he needed to qualify the examination.
Armed with
such opinion, the petitioner made a representation to the Advocates-on-Record
Examination Committee requesting re-evaluation of his answer sheets in Paper –
I (Supreme Court Practice and Procedure) and Paper – III (Legal Ethics). This
representation was, however, rejected by the Committee.
Aggrieved by
the rejection of his representation, the petitioner filed the present writ
petition in Delhi High Court challenging the outcome of the AOR Examination,
2016 and also the Regulations for holding AOR Examinations. Apart from the
grievance that the Regulations are arbitrary, the petitioner also complained
that the method of evaluation of the answer sheets followed by the
Advocates-on-Record Examination Committee was inherently arbitrary, opaque, non-transparent
and that a purely subjective method was adopted. He also submitted that the
evaluation of answer sheets is not by any experts in the fields but is by
practicing advocates who were not trained in the business of evaluation of
answer sheets. It was submitted that sub-regulations (ii), (iii) and (iv) of
the Regulation 11 of the Regulations regarding AOR Examination have to be read
ejusdem generis; that there is no intelligible basis for permitting only five
chances in the examination. The contention was that in any case, in all his
attempts, the petitioner cleared at least three papers, failing only in one
paper and for that reason, the prohibition contained in Regulation 11(iv)
restricting available opportunity to five chances for clearing the examination
was not applicable to the petitioner.
Importantly,
he also challenged Regulation 12 of the Regulations regarding AOR Examination
which prohibits re-valuation of paper as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Based on the same, the petitioner also sought re-valuation of his papers.
The Court,
however, refused to accept the submissions of the petitioner on the ground that
the petitioner had voluntarily participated in the exam process and
subsequently challenged it when he failed to clear the exam.
“Regulation
12 of the Regulations unequivocally declared that no re-evaluation shall be
entertained. The petitioner accepted all stipulations made in the Regulations
and participated in the examination. Clearly, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition after having consciously participated in the examination
process and having failed to clear the same”
Placing
reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar
Shukla & Ors., the Court ruled that that a candidate would stand estopped
from challenging the selection process as well as examination after having
participated therein.
Regarding his
prayer for re-valuation of answer sheet, the Court relied upon the judgment in
H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. and ruled that when the regulations contain
an absolute prohibition against revaluation, the Court should not direct such a
revaluation.
The Court,
therefore, dismissed the petition holding that the challenge is “clearly
belated and an afterthought” and was made only after he failed to qualify in
the AoR exam.
.JPG)
.JPG)
