The court emphasized the absence of a provision for re-valuation in the selection rules and the discretion of the Examiner in awarding marks, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's request for mandamus.

N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to evaluate the petitioner's answer with reference to question No.4 only and not with reference to question No.3, which was not answered at all and award marks to question No.4 in Law Paper-II and consequently direct the respondent to call her for viva-voce.

2. The petitioner, who was one of the candidate applied for Civil Judge (Junior Division) post in terms of the notification issued on 21.1.2012, has filed this writ petition contending that she attended the written examinations conducted by the High Court for selection in all four papers. In Translation paper petitioner secured 65 marks out of 100; in Law Paper-I she secured 49 marks out of 100; in Law Paper-II, 31 out of 100; and in Law Paper-III, 52 out of 100, thus, petitioner failed to secure minimum of 35 marks in Law Paper-II. She has applied for xerox copy of the answer paper in Law Paper-II, which was also furnished to her. According to the petitioner, she answered question No.4 in Law Paper-II and not answered question No.3. However, the Examiner misconstrued the answer given to question No.4 as question No.3 and awarded "0" mark and the same was also entered in the tabular sheet attached to the answer book indicating that for question No.3 "0" mark is awarded. For question No.4 there is no entry in the tabular sheet at the first page of the answer book.

3. On the basis of the above statements, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that answer to question No.4 was not at all evaluated and if the same is evaluated and if more than three marks are awarded, her total marks in Law Paper-II would be above 35, so that she will be eligible to be called for viva-voce test and for subsequent selection. The learned counsel also argued that the Examiner misconstrued the answer to question No.4 of Law Paper-II to that of question No.3 and awarded 0' mark and in fact the petitioner has answered only question No.4 in Law Paper-II and therefore the evaluation may be ordered for question No.4 and the said request need not be construed as re-valuation, as question No.4 was not at all evaluated by the Examiner. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner having answered question No.4, assuming partially correct, she is entitled to get some marks and awarding 0' mark is erroneous.

4. The respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the answer sheets were valued by 170 persons, holding posts in the cadre of District Judges, and the valuation work actually commenced at the State Judicial Academy on 2.4.2012. The valuation was centralised and to ensure highest degree of confidentiality and uniformity in evaluation, two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, assisted by a Joint Registrar were entrusted the task. As and when the evaluation was over, the marks were fed into the computer system everyday. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that to ensure uniformity in evaluation, a special procedure was adopted by the High Court i.e, immediately after the Examiners assembled in a central evaluation hall at 9.00 a.m., copies of question papers pertaining to the particular paper that was to be taken up for evaluation during that week, were distributed to the Examiners by the Hon'ble Judges present and all the Examiners were to go through the question papers thoroughly for about 30 minutes. Thereafter instructions and broad guidelines, styled as key answers were distributed to all the examiners and they were given 45 minutes to carefully go through the same and make notes. After that, there was an interactive session between the Examiners and two Hon'ble Judges, who were physically present at the valuation hall. The Examiners were allowed to freely exchange ideas, express views and come up with suggestions, so that common parameters could be evolved for evaluation. A detailed procedure of virtually educating the Examiners took place for