Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Review in Civil Judge Exam Dispute; Holds Review Cannot Be Used as Appeal and Bars Re-evaluation
Case Name: Diksha Kalson v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 9 January 2026
Citation: RA-CW-588-2025 in CWP-4917-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the review application along with the application seeking condonation of 260 days’ delay, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record or any ground falling within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The Court held that review proceedings cannot be used as a substitute for appeal and that re-evaluation of answers in a competitive examination is impermissible where the governing rules expressly prohibit it.
Summary: The review application was filed seeking review of the final judgment dated 28 February 2025 by which the petitioner’s writ petition challenging evaluation of her answer sheet in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination 2023–24 had been dismissed. The petitioner had sought re-evaluation of Question No.2(x) of English Paper IV and consequential declaration of selection, contending that similarly situated candidates had been granted relief earlier.
The respondents opposed the review, contending that the application was an attempt to reopen the matter on merits and was beyond the permissible scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was further argued that the review was hopelessly delayed and unsupported by any satisfactory explanation.
The Division Bench examined the statutory framework governing review jurisdiction and relied upon authoritative precedents including Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka and S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan. The Court reiterated that review is an exceptional remedy, confined to correction of patent errors, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient reasons, and cannot be invoked for re-hearing or re-appreciation of issues already decided.
On facts, the Court noted that in the original judgment, the petitioner’s answer had been examined and it was specifically held that the evaluation was neither palpably incorrect nor egregious. The Court had also held that Clause 33 of the advertisement expressly barred re-evaluation and permitted only limited re-checking, none of which was attracted in the present case. The review application was found to be a disguised attempt to seek re-adjudication on merits.
The Court further found that the delay of 260 days in filing the review application was unexplained and indicative of an attempt to prolong litigation. In the absence of any cogent justification for delay or any error apparent on the face of the record, the Court declined to exercise review jurisdiction.
Decision: The application seeking condonation of delay as well as the review application were dismissed.