Rounding off Marks for Eligibility Is Prohibited and Repeated Re-Litigation Constitutes Abuse of Process

The appellant, Priya Mishra, challenged a Single Judge order dated 29.01.2025 which dismissed her writ petition (WPC No. 1197 of 2019) seeking re-evaluation of answer scripts and rounding off of marks for NET examination eligibility

The appeal was filed with significant procedural defects, including a 358-day delay without a condonation application, non-payment of court fees, and a defective Vakalatnama

Furthermore, the appellant had previously litigated the same cause of action in multiple proceedings, including WA No. 403/2022 and WPC No. 312/2020, all of which were dismissed on merits or for suppression of facts

1. Whether the intra-court appeal is maintainable in light of substantial procedural defects and an inordinate, unexplained delay

2. Whether the appellant’s conduct in filing successive proceedings on a concluded issue constitutes an abuse of the process of law and is barred by the doctrine of finality

The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata and the principle of finality of litigation, which prohibits parties from re-agitating issues already decided by a competent court

It relied on binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically prohibiting the rounding off of marks to determine eligibility for NET examinations

Additionally, the Court exercised its inherent power to impose exemplary costs for the deliberate abuse of the judicial process and suppression of material facts

The Court observed that the appeal was “wholly defective,” noting that the failures to file a synopsis, pay court fees, or explain a 358-day delay were fundamental flaws rather than mere technicalities

On the merits of conduct, the Court found that the appellant had systematically suppressed the fact that her claims regarding re-evaluation and rounding off had already attained finality through several prior rounds of litigation, including a previous writ appeal (WA No. 403/2022) and multiple review petitions

The Court reasoned that such repetitive litigation on identical grounds, despite consistent failures, demonstrated a calculated attempt to mislead the judiciary and waste judicial time

Consequently, the Court held that the appellant's actions undermined the sanctity of judicial determinations

The Court held that the matter had already attained finality and was barred by limitation and procedural defaults

To deter such conduct, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant, to be deposited within one month for the benefit of the Government Special School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra

Failure to pay will result in recovery as arrears of land revenue