2019 Supreme(SC) 1362

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. A. BOBDE, CJI., B.R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Pranav Verma & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Registrar General of The High Court of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh & Anr – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565, 617, 651 of 2019
Decided On : 13-12-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Composition of Selection Committee is sole prerogative of Chief Justice of High Court in matter of selection of Judicial Officers.
(2) Viva-voce and Written Examination (Main Exam), both have their own importance in a selection process.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Selection – Challenge to entire selection process and evaluation method adopted in Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2017 – Evaluation done by multiple evaluators i.e. one Evaluator examining and marking one question in all mark-sheets, ensures uniformity and prevents chance grading – Every candidate’s answers are marked on same parameters by same examiner – There can possibly be no other better method to ensure uniformity in evaluation – Petitioners have stated that as per information received via RTI no model ‘answer key’ was present – It gives more credence to method of evaluation as no model ‘answer key’ ought to be devised for Main Exam, purpose whereof is not to just assess knowledge of candidates but also to evaluate their analytical ability – Marking criteria and evaluation method was strict but it was so for everyone – However, Evaluators failed to keep a pragmatic view that source of recruitment was likely to be the same in a fresh attempt also and that candidates had only 8.5 minutes to answer each question and time constraint did not allow them to give their best of performance – Even those candidates who covered all aspects briefly were not awarded proper marks – But no discriminatory or malafide practice was undertaken while conducting exam or its following processes – Considering that marking was strict but not discriminatory, remedy of moderation of marks, in order to remove variation caused by multiple examiners and dearth of time, is the only effective, equitable and efficacious solution. (Paras 14, 15, 16 and 17)

(B) Service Law – Selection – Challenge to entire selection process and evaluation method adopted in Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2017 – Petitioners have failed to assign any well founded reason for seeking moderation of 50 grace marks, only on apprehension that even candidates who secured good marks in written examinations were given very low marks in viva-voce and Committee has been awarding a meagre 8 to 18 marks and they too will not be able to meet eligibility criteria of minimum 50% marks – Viva-voce and Written Examination (Main Exam), both have their own importance in a selection process and it is for interviewing panel to decide how many marks be awarded to a candidate keeping in view his performance in interview – Composition of Selection Committee is sole prerogative of Chief Justice of High Court and this Court need not venture into the issue which pertains to exercise of administrative power (s) of Chief Justice – There is no provision for re-evaluation in Recruitment Rules and any such direction would run counter to mandate of this Court – As written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post – Any measure which fosters bias in minds of interviewers must be done away with – Writ Petitions allowed in part with directions. (Paras 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28)

Facts of the case:

Present Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution have been filed at the instance of more than 90 candidates challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method adopted in the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination – 2017 and seeking to quash the result declared on 11.4.2019 along with the directions to get all papers of the Main Exam of the petitioners to be re-evaluated by an Independent Expert Committee, besides the constitution of an Independent Judicial Service Commission for conducting examinations for selection of Lower Judicial Officers.

Findings of Court:

As regards the petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism. The broad principles to be laid down in this regard must be viewed keeping in view the selections for various categories of posts by different Selecting Authorities, for such a self-evolved criteria cannot be restricted to Judicial Services only. If the Members of the Interviewing Boards are already aware of the marks of a candidate secured in Written Examination, they can individually or jointly tilt the final result in favour or against such candidate. The suggested recourse, thus, is likely to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of a candidate in viva-voce.

Result : Writ Petitions allowed in part.