Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq and Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ.
Arti Meena D/o Dhanji Lal Meena - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 10022 of 2019, 10100 of 2019, 10217 of 2019, 10570 of 2019, 10705 of 2019, 10920 of 2019, 10921 of 2019, 10922 of 2019, 10953 of 2019, 11102 of 2019, 11134 of 2019, 11161 of 2019, 11257 of 2019, 11317 of 2019, 11319 of 2019, 11356 of 2019, 11357 of 2019, 11358 of 2019, 11360 of 2019, 11361 of 2019, 11394 of 2019, 11395 of 2019, 11456 of 2019, 11570 of 2019, 9577 of 2019, 9752 of 2019, 9697 of 2019, 9854 of 2019, 9857 of 2019, 9906 of 2019, 9965 of 2019, 9768 of 2019, 11788 of 2019
Decided On : 18-07-2019
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a batch of writ petitions challenging the correctness of the final answer key for the preliminary examination for recruitment to Civil Judge Cadre. The Court examined the objections raised by petitioners and evaluated the arguments presented by both parties. It considered relevant case law and expert opinions to determine the validity of the challenges. The Court upheld the decision to delete five questions from the examination due to multiple correct options or ambiguity, and directed the respondents to award marks to all candidates who chose any one of the correct answers. However, the Court rejected the challenge to the model answer key for the remaining questions, finding that the objections lacked merit and that the answers were palpably correct. The Court also declined to interfere with the decision to declare a separate cut-off for female candidates of reserved categories, as it was not required under the recruitment rules. The Court directed the respondents to recompute the marks and prepare a fresh list of eligible candidates, including those who secured more marks than the last candidate originally allowed to appear in the main examination, and to permit all such candidates to appear in the main examination.
Fact of the Case:
A batch of writ petitions challenged the correctness of the final answer key for the preliminary examination for recruitment to Civil Judge Cadre, conducted by the Rajasthan High Court. Petitioners raised objections to the deletion of five questions, the model answer key for the remaining questions, and the absence of a separate cut-off for female candidates of reserved categories.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the decision to delete five questions from the examination due to multiple correct options or ambiguity, and directed the respondents to award marks to all candidates who chose any one of the correct answers. However, the Court rejected the challenge to the model answer key for the remaining questions, finding that the objections lacked merit and that the answers were palpably correct. The Court also declined to interfere with the decision to declare a separate cut-off for female candidates of reserved categories, as it was not required under the recruitment rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the deletion of five questions from the examination was justified due to multiple correct options or ambiguity. 2. Whether marks should be awarded to candidates who chose any one of the correct answers to the deleted questions. 3. Whether the model answer key for the remaining questions was correct and should be upheld. 4. Whether a separate cut-off should be declared for female candidates of reserved categories.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the deletion of five questions from the examination was justified due to multiple correct options or ambiguity, as per the principles established in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta and other relevant case law. 2. The Court directed the respondents to award marks to all candidates who chose any one of the correct answers to the deleted questions, as it would be unfair to penalize candidates for choosing an answer that was later deemed incorrect. 3. The Court rejected the challenge to the model answer key for the remaining questions, finding that the objections lacked merit and that the answers were palpably correct. It emphasized the need for judicial restraint in interfering with the opinion of experts unless it is proved to be palpably wrong. 4. The Court declined to interfere with the decision to declare a separate cut-off for female candidates of reserved categories, as it was not required under the recruitment rules.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the writ petitions by upholding the deletion of five questions and directing the respondents to recompute the marks and prepare a fresh list of eligible candidates, including those who secured more marks than the last candidate originally allowed to appear in the main examination. The Court also permitted all such candidates to appear in the main examination. The Court declined to interfere with the decision to declare a separate cut-off for female candidates of reserved categories.
JUDGMENT
Mohammad Rafiq, J. - This batch of writ petitions seeks to challenge the correctness of final answer key of the preliminary examination issued by the respondent Rajasthan High Court dated 20.05.2019 for recruitment of 197 posts to Civil Judge Cadre, notified vide advertisement dated 15.11.2018. Challenge has been made to decision of the respondent-High Court establishment, deleting five questions of the question paper of preliminary examination. In the alternative, prayer has also been made for award of bonus marks for the deleted five questions. Also challenged answers to twenty other questions on different grounds.
2. It may be noted at the outset that as per the scheme of examination, the competitive examination for recruitment was to be conducted in two stages, i.e,. preliminary examination and main examination. Marks obtained in the preliminary examination by the candidates, who are declared qualified for main examination, are not counted for determination of final merit. All those candidates who secure same percentage of marks of the last cut off would be admitted to the main examination. Candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category were required to secure 35% minimum marks and candidates of all other categories were required to secure 40% minimum marks in the preliminary examination. It was also notified that number of candidates to be permitted to appear in the main examination would be 15 times the total number of vacancies categorywise. It was also notified that number of candidates to be called for interview shall be, as far as possible, three times the number of vacancies categorywise, provided that a candidate in order to qualify for interview shall have to secure minimum 35% marks in each law paper and 40% marks aggregate in main examination. However, the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes would be deemed to be eligible for interview if he/she has obtained minimum 30% marks in each of the law paper and 35% marks aggregate in the main examination. It was compulsory for every candidate to appear in each paper of written test as also before the interview board for viva-voce failing which he shall not be recommended for appointment. The preliminary examination carried 100 marks on the basis of hundred objective type questions, with one mark for each question. Each question had four options with only one correct answer. The question papers booklet distributed at the examination centers were in four series, namely, A, B, C, D, where due to reshuffling serial number of the questions would undergo a change in the paper, although the question remains the same with the same multiple options in the same order. Except the language papers, candidates were provided question paper booklet in bi-lingual, i.e., both English and Hindi and the candidates were provided OMR sheets in objective type where they have to simply darken the circle/bubble, indicating the correct answer from black/blue ball point pen as per the instruction no.6 provided on the top thereof. The answer books are evaluated with the help of the computer programme, as per one of the four circles/bubbles so darkened. In fact, question paper booklet contained 12 instructions. The instruction no.3 was to the effect that only one answer is to be given for each question. The instruction no.4 provided that if more than one answer is marked, it would be treated as wrong answer. Instruction no.6 was to the effect that each question has four options marked serially as 1,2,3,4 out of which only one is correct. Instruction no.7 read that there is no Negative Marking. Instruction no.10 provided that if there is any sort of ambiguity/mistake either of printing or factual nature then out of Hindi and English version of the question, the English version will be treated as standard.
3. A total 42118 candidates applied in response to the advertisement but only 27776 candidates appeared in the preliminary examination. Of th
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
