1. Challenge to marks awarded in a subjective language paper of a judicial services competitive examination — seeking re-evaluation and quashing of results. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1377
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, J.
Sonal Gupta & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Registrar General, Rajashtan High Court Jodhpur & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) 708 of 2024, W.P.(C) No(s). 706 of 2024 With W.P.(C) No(s). 711 of 2024 With Diary No(s). 48927 of 2024 With Diary No(s). 48993 of 2024 And With W.P.(C) No(s). 709 of 2024
Decided On : 24-10-2024
Important Points
The court confirmed that, absent evidence of arbitrary marking, the recruitment process for Civil Judges was valid under constitutional provisions, indicating strict evaluation criteria were applied uniformly.
Subject
Judicial Review - Evaluation Standards
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.32
RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICES RULES: R.16, R.20
RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICES RULES: R.16, R.20
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 and Article 226 - Recruitment process for Civil Judges - Petitioners challenge arbitrary marking in the English Essay portion of the examination, claiming discrepancies resulted in disqualification - Court orders evaluation of the process; finds no statistical discrepancies and no evidence of deliberate low marking - The marking scheme was fair with no arbitrary variations in assessment - The petitions dismiss as they do not qualify under the existing legal parameters. (Paras 1, 6, 13, 14, 15)
(B) Assessment and Evaluation - The evaluation method must ensure uniformity; discrepancies only arise in cases of differential treatment - A Court may intervene only if substantial proof of unfair marking is established. (Paras 10, 12)
(B) Assessment and Evaluation - The evaluation method must ensure uniformity; discrepancies only arise in cases of differential treatment - A Court may intervene only if substantial proof of unfair marking is established. (Paras 10, 12)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv. Ms. Ekta K Sikri, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, AOR Mr. Ajaypal Singh Kullar, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Mudgal, Adv. Ms. Anshul Rajora, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Gaur, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. A Sumathi, Adv. Ms. Ila Shikhar Sheel, AOR Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mayank Barua, Adv. Ms. Puja Shaw, Adv. Mrs. Arpana Soni, Adv. Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Aarti Pal, Adv. Mr. Keshav Dev, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Naman Sherstra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Poonia, Adv. Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Puneet Chahar, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Anurag Yadav, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv. Ms. Ekta K Sikri, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, AOR Mr. Ajaypal Singh Kullar, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Mudgal, Adv. Ms. Anshul Rajora, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Gaur, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. A Sumathi, Adv. Ms. Ila Shikhar Sheel, AOR Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mayank Barua, Adv. Ms. Puja Shaw, Adv. Mrs. Arpana Soni, Adv. Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Aarti Pal, Adv. Mr. Keshav Dev, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Naman Sherstra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Poonia, Adv. Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Puneet Chahar, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Anurag Yadav, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Allegations of arbitrary and skewed marking in subjective language papers — lack of minimum qualifying marks — insufficient space and excessive examiner workload. (Para 7 )
3. Evaluation process was uniform across candidates — no statistical discrepancy or evidence of deliberate low marking found upon perusal of answer sheets. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Courts will not interfere in competitive exam evaluations absent evidence of deliberate deprivation of marks or significant arbitrary variation in marking. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 )
5. Petitions dismissed — liberty granted to candidates to approach the High Court for individual grievances. (Para 15 )
6. When can courts interfere in the evaluation of competitive examinations?
Courts generally do not interfere unless there is evidence that meritorious candidates were deliberately deprived of marks or if there is a wide, arbitrary variation in results that suggests a lack of uniformity in the evaluation process. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 )
7. How does a uniform evaluation process involving multiple evaluators for specific questions affect marking discrepancies?
When multiple evaluators are used such that one evaluator marks the same question across all scripts, uniformity is ensured and the chance of arbitrary grading is reduced, as every candidate is assessed on the same parameters. (Para 10 )
8. Does the failure of candidates who cleared preliminary exams to clear the main exam imply fault in the examining authority?
No, the fact that candidates who qualified for the preliminary examination did not clear the main examination is not sufficient ground to infer fault or arbitrariness on the part of the examining authority. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
1. A hundred and nine Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Petitioners are candidates who appeared for the main examination of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 which was conducted on 31 August 2024 and 1 September 2024. Their grievance is that they have been awarded marks arbitrarily in the subjective exam paper, namely, the Language Paper – II (English Essay) which has led to them falling below the cut off marks for the interview round. A petition for special leave is also preferred against an order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 19 October 2024 dismissing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on identical issues in light of these proceedings having commenced before this Court. The Petitioners seek the quashing of the results of the main exams and re- evaluation of the answer sheets by an expert committee. Since the issues are identical, the petitions are being disposed of together.
Factual Background
2. The RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICES RULES 20101[‘RJS Rules’] stipulate that recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges shall be made directly on the basis of a competitive examination.2[ Rule 16 , RJS Rules.] The scheme of the selection process takes place in three stages, namely, (i) the preliminary examination; (ii) the main examination; and (iii) the interview round.3[ Rule 20 , RJS Rules] The scheme of the written examination is provided in Schedule IV of the RJS Rules. The High Court of Rajasthan issued an Advertisement numbered RHC/Exam Cell/RJS/CJC/2024/783 which notified the Civil Judge Cadre 2024 examination to fill two hundred and twenty-two vacancies.
3. The Petitioners qualified at the preliminary examination which was conducted on 23 June 2024. The main examination was divided into four parts, namely, (i) Law Paper – I (Civil); (ii) Law Paper – II (Criminal); (iii) Language Paper – I (Hindi Essay); and (iv) Language Paper – II (English Essay). The law papers were to be marked out of one hundred each and the language papers were to be marked out of fifty each. Three questions were required to be answered in the English Essay. For all candidates, the first question was assessed by a District Judge level officer while the second question and the third question respectively were directed to be assessed by distinct sets of English Professors working in a Government College to ensure the fairness of the process.
4. The RJS Rules stipulate that the minimum cut off marks in law papers for qualifying for the viva voce shall be 35% for the unreserved category and 30% for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories. Candidates must have an aggregate of 40% (35% for SC/ST candidates) to be eligible for the interview. No minimum marks are stipulated for language papers.
5. The Petitioners appeared for the examination on 31 August 2024 and 1 September 2024. The results were declared on 1 October 2024. Six hundred and thirty-eight candidates qualified for the interview stage of the recruitment process. When the Petitioners received their score cards on 4 October 2024, they noticed that their marks in the Language Paper-II (English Essay) were fatally low – ranging between zero and fifteen out of fifty marks. Aggrieved by the award of low marks in the English Essay, the Petitioners moved this Court for re-evaluation of the answer papers by an expert committee and setting aside of the results which were notified on 4 October 2024.
6. The question which arises for consideration is whether there is any arbitrary variation in the marks obtained by candidates in the language examination which may affect the integrity of the overall results of the examination.
7. The Petitioners argued that there are serious discrepancies in the marks awarded to candidates for the English Essay examination. They submit as follows:
a. In the absence of minimum qualifying marks for the language papers, the marking has been skewed. Can
