JUDGMENT :

Sanjib Banerjee,

1. A Candidate, who has failed to clear the qualifying hurdle, questions the correctness of some of the answers in Paper-I of the Preliminary examinations.

2. The Petitioner seeks direct entry into the cadre of District Judge (Entry level). He obtained 33 marks out of 100 in Paper-I based on objective-type questions. The qualifying mark was 35. Each question carried one mark and every wrong answer resulted in 0.25 marks being deducted by way of negative marking.

3. The Petitioner claims that he ought to have obtained at least 37 marks, since the answers to four of the questions were wrong and if the negative marking is discounted, he may have got another half mark.

4. According to the Petitioner, the answers to Questions 20, 52, 72 & 98 were clearly erroneous. He wants such errors to be corrected and the marks in respect of such questions awarded to him as his answer in each case was the more appropriate. The Petitioner asserts that he does not want any ranking, but merely an opportunity to qualify to take part in the competitive leg of the examinations.

5. Question 20 of the paper pertained to marshalling by the subsequent purchaser as provided for in Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The question was: What is 'Marshalling in favour of purchaser'? Two options were given by way of propositions followed by four possibilities as to whether the first option was the more appropriate or the second or both were correct or neither.

6. Question 52 pertained to the Supreme Court Judgment in which secularism was recognised to be one of the basic structures of the Indian Constitution. Of the four options, the Judgments in Kesavananda Bharathi v. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225; and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 (3) SCC 1, were indicated. The Petitioner opted for S.R. Bommai, but the correct answer indicated by the High Court was Kesavananda Bharathi.

7. Question 72 of the relevant paper pertained to a reward being announced and the person, who performed the Contract not being aware of the announcement. The four options pertained to whether the relevant person was entitled to the reward though he had no knowledge of the offer.

8. Question 98 was in respect of an Appellate Order in a Civil matter. Instead of the Appeal provision being indicated as Order XLI, the provision was mistakenly indicated as Order XXXXI. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner did not attempt to answer Question 98, though the Petitioner had answered Questions 20, 52 & 72 but was found to have furnished incorrect answers in the light of the master key prepared by the High Court.

9. It is of some relevance that in terms of a Supreme Court Judgment, the answers to the Objective-type Questions are indicated prior to the evaluation of the papers and objections are invited in such regard. In this case objections were received, including from the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner's objections pertained to Questions 18, 20, 75, 76 & 49. Of the five, the objections pertaining to Questions 18, 74 & 49 were accepted and the two others were rejected. Indeed, in respect of Question 49, the High Court observed that due to the vagueness or mistaken nature of the question, all those who had attempted the same would get the one mark irrespective of the answer.

10. To begin with, it must be noticed that the Petitioner had no grievance in respect of Questions 52 & 72; nor could the Petitioner have had any grievance in respect of Question No. 98 which he did not attempt to answer. At any rate, it is not the Petitioner's case that the answer to Question 98 was wrong; but only that Order 41 of the Code was erroneously represented in the Roman numerical.

11. The Petitioner relies on the reference to a Supreme Court Judgment contained in a Division Bench Judgment of this Court relied upon by the High Court administration. In the relevant High Court Judgment, there is a reference to the Supreme Court decision reported at Ran Vijay Singh v. State of