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.

JUDGMENT :

(Bharat P. Deshpande, J.)

1. Both these petitions are taken up together for final disposal at the admission stage with consent since the issue involved is the same.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard matter finally at the stage of admission with consent.

3. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5/2024 is a practicing Advocate who applied for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class in view of the advertisement dated 7.6.2022 (Goa Judicial Service Rules, 2013). Petitioner appeared for the written examination which consisted of two papers, one on the Civil side and other on the Criminal side. Result of the examination was declared wherein the petitioner is shown as passed in paper I (Civil) whereas failed in paper II (Criminal). The petitioner then applied for copies of answer sheets under Right to Information Act which were furnished to her. Being not satisfied with the marks given in paper II (Criminal), she filed present petition basically seeking direction to re-evaluation/re-correction of her paper II (Criminal) of the main examine, on the ground that evaluation was done very strictly and secondly, key answers were not provided though asked for which prevented her from raising specific grounds.

4. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24/2024 is also a practicing Advocate who applied for the same examination for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class and appeared for the written examination. Result of the petitioner was declared showing that petitioner passed in paper I (Civil) but was declared unsuccessful in paper II (Criminal). She then asked for the copies of the above answer sheets which were furnished to her. Petitioner being unsatisfied with the marks given by evaluator and moderator, is praying for quashing of the result with regards to paper II (Criminal) with a direction to the respondent no.1 to re-evaluate.

5. Mr. Padiyar and Mr. Agni learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strongly contended that first of all assessment carried out is unjustified and evaluation of the papers have been carried out very harshly. Since the answer key is not provided, the petitioners are unable to demonstrate the grounds as to how marks are not properly evaluated or given on the steps or on the specific answers. It is then claimed that though papers have been evaluated by the evaluator and thereafter by moderator, marks of the evaluator and the moderator are surprisingly equal in most of the questions which shows that moderator failed to apply its mind. It is claimed that moderator has to give separate marks then the evaluator so as to demonstrate that moderator had also applied its mind to the answers of a candidate.

6. Both the learned counsel would then submit that even though they are not making allegations of any malafides or otherwise against the examiners and moderators, matters need to be re-looked since petitioners who are young Advocates, tried to give answers as per their understanding and in such circumstance, very strict examination or evaluation of the papers would result in eliminating probable candidate. It is further contended that passing percentage in the said examination is very low and only one candidate was declared successful in the written examination.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:

1. Pranav Verma and others Vs The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and another, (2019) 15 S.C.R. 43

2. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs Shaunak H. Satya and ors. (2011) 14 (ADDL) S.C.R. 328

3. Navneet Kaur Dhaliwal and ors Vs The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and Anr., Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(). 143/2020

4. Ran Vijay Singh and ors Vs State of U.P. and ors., (2017) 12 S.C.R. 95

8. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Pangam appearing for the respondents would submit that first of all Goa Judicial Service Rules,