Breaking: Delhi High Court turns down challenge to Supreme Court AoR Regulations on Revaluation

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..Read the judgment below.