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 :
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
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that re-evaluation of answer sheets is impermissible as per the advertisement and relevant rules. The court emphasized the importance of uniform ma....
Judicial review in examination matters is limited; without allegations of mala fide or bias, courts cannot interfere with subjective evaluations or mark alterations prohibited by relevant rules.
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.
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
