Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29.The learned Advocate General would take me through paragraph 19 of the judgment in Rajesh Kumar's case cited supra to make submission that unless there are compelling reasons like mal-practice, fraud or corrupt motives, thereby vitiating the entire examination, ordering for fresh examination may not be appropriate. At this juncture, it will be necessary to have a look into paragraph 19 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

"19.The submissions made by Mr.Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case."