In Brief
A law graduate challenged his dismissal from a 2011 Tripura Judicial Service examination, claiming correct answers were marked incorrect. The High Court allowed his review petition and ordered re-evaluation five years after the original decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that while no statutory right to re-evaluation exists, courts retain discretionary power under Article 226 to intervene in rare exceptional cases of demonstrable error. However, the inordinate five-year delay, combined with subsequent fresh selections and failure to raise grounds earlier, made this case unsuitable for such interference. The appeal was allowed and the review petition dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.