Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel has dismissed a review application and a related delay-condonation plea filed by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination aspirant who sought re-evaluation of her English Paper IV answer to a particular question and, consequently, selection. The Court declined to reopen its earlier decision refusing re-evaluation, holding that review jurisdiction is narrowly confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, considering new and important material or evidence, or a comparable sufficient ground, and cannot be used to revisit the merits as a substitute for an appeal. It also found no satisfactory explanation for the 260-day delay in seeking review.

The proceedings arose from a review application filed by a candidate who had earlier challenged the evaluation of her answer script in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2023–24. The original writ petition sought, inter alia, a declaration that the clause prohibiting re-evaluation was unconstitutional, production of the English Paper IV answer sheet, re-evaluation of a specific question, award of additional marks, and a consequential declaration of selection.

Also Read: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Father-In-Law’s Death Can Seek Maintenance From His Estate: Supreme Court

The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court through a final judgment dated 28 February 2025. Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner instituted a review application seeking reconsideration of the dismissal. Alongside the review plea, a separate application was filed seeking condonation of a delay of 260 days in filing the review.

The petitioner contended that in similar circumstances, directions for re-evaluation had been granted in other cases, and that denial of re-evaluation violated fairness in the examination process. The respondent authority opposed the review, asserting that the application amounted to a recall of the final judgment and fell outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court first delineated the limited contours of review jurisdiction, noting that “the seminal legal issue that arises for consideration is the scope, nature and extent of review jurisdiction as enshrined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 / writ jurisdiction.”

After extracting Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Bench referred to settled precedent governing review powers. Relying on binding authority, the Court recorded that “a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case.” It further noted that finality of judgments can be departed from only in narrowly circumscribed situations involving “a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error.”

The Court observed that review jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction and clarified that “review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC.” It reiterated that an error apparent must be one which “must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning.”

Turning to the facts of the case, the Bench recalled its earlier findings in the writ proceedings, recording that “the concerned expert/examiner has perused the answer in issue … and thereafter has chosen to award zero marks.” Upon examining the answer itself, the Court had already concluded that “it cannot be said that such evaluation was palpably incorrect or egregious.”

The Court noted that the petitioner was effectively inviting judicial substitution of academic assessment, observing that “the petitioner is indeed seeking this Court to be a super-evaluator, supplanting its view for that of the examiner/expert,” which was impermissible. It also recorded that the governing examination clause “clearly proscribes re-evaluation of the answer sheets” and permits only limited re-checking, none of which was attracted in the present case.

On the maintainability of the review, the Court held that “under the thin veil of seeking a review, the applicant has approached this Court to re-adjudicate the very lis on its substantive merits,” a course falling “squarely outside the strictly delineated ambit of review jurisdiction.”

Also Read: Right To Shelter Rehabilitation Claims Must Be Assessed Holistically, Not Defeated By Hyper-Technical Objections: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Chandigarh Administration To Allot Flat To Orphaned Minor

Addressing delay, the Court recorded that the review was filed after 260 days and observed that “the review-applicant/petitioner has not furnished any cogent or satisfactory explanation for this protracted delay.” It further stated that “an inordinate and unexplained hiatus of 260 days … evinces a deliberate attempt … to protract the proceedings.”

The Court directed as follows “The delay condonation application as also application in hand are dismissed. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Birinder Pal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate

Case Title: Diksha Kalson v. State of Haryana and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:001324
Case Number: RA-CW-588-2025 (O&M) in CWP-4917-2025
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Sumeet Goel