Back
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Sonal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, Rajashtan High Court Jodhpur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' grievances over exam marking (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. allegations of arbitrary mark variations (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's evaluation process and findings (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. decision to dismiss petitions (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
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 i
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 ....
The court upheld the recruitment process's validity, asserting that low qualification rates alone do not imply arbitrariness, and candidates cannot challenge post-failure under doctrines of acquiesce....
The decision of the respondent-JPSC in fixing the minimum qualifying marks for the papers of Section-II in the Mains Examination is not arbitrary, rather there is a rationale behind it.
Candidates cannot challenge recruitment processes post-results without demonstrating legal injury or material error affecting their outcomes.
The court upheld the evaluation process of examination papers, stating that without statutory provision for re-evaluation, it cannot interfere unless a clear material error is demonstrated.
The court established that discrepancies in examination marking must be addressed fairly for all candidates, emphasizing the importance of accurate answer keys in recruitment processes.
A state authority's arbitrary decision that undermines the principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness in the marking process can be set aside.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
