The main legal point established in the judgment is that the correctness of answers to examination questions should be determined based on the statutory provisions and legal principles, and the examination questions are designed to test the legal acumen and intelligence of the candidates.

1. As common questions of law and fact are involved in these two writ petitions, they are being heard analogously. For the sake of convenience, pleadings and documents available in the record of Writ Petition No. 1281/2016 are being referred to in this order.

2. Petitioners participated in the recruitment process conducted by the High Court for appointment on the post of Civil Judge Class II (Entry Level). In Writ Petition No. 1281/2016, petitioners secured 85 marks in the preliminary examination, whereas the cut-off marks fixed to be eligible for being successful in the preliminary examination, in the unreserved category, was 86 marks. Similarly, petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1224/2016 also appeared in the preliminary examination in the Civil Judge Class II, Entry Level Examination 2015, conducted on 20.12.2015, and received 85 marks. It is their case also that the cut-off mark fixed to be eligible to appear in the final examination was 86 and in fact all the petitioners missed their chance to be declared qualified in the preliminary examination by one mark.

3. It is the case of all the petitioners that in the examination, Question No. 15 and Question No. 55 were answered by them correctly and in spite of having answered the questions correctly, they were not given marks. Inter alia contending that if one mark each, in these questions, are granted to each of the petitioners, they would be declared qualified in the preliminary examination and would become eligible to appear in the final examination. It is stated that the model answers notified by the Examination Section of the High Court, with regard to both these questions i.e. Question No. 15 and Question No. 55 are incorrect, the questions answered by the petitioners are correct and, therefore, seeking benefit of two additional marks, the writ petitions have been filed.

4. Considering the grievance of the petitioners, at the preliminary stage finding a prima facie case made out, the petitioners were permitted to appear provisionally subject to final decision of the writ petitions with a rider that no equity shall be claimed by them at a later stage and they were permitted to appear in the Final Examination, and we are told that all the petitioners appeared in the Final Examination and except for one of the petitioners, in Writ Petition No. 1281/2016, the others have not passed the Examination.

5. Be that as it may be, we are now required to consider the grievance of the petitioners and take a decision.

6. Question No. 15 reads as under:-

"15. Order rejecting plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 , of the CPC."

The four options given for this question are as under:-

"(1) - is a decree;

(2) - is an order;

(3) - is a deemed decree; and,

(4) - is an interim order."

According to the model answer circulated by the High Court, Option 1 is the correct answer, whereas according to the petitioners Option 3 is the correct answer.

7. Question No. 55 reads as under:-

"55. Two persons, A & B fight with each other. A was having a blade with which A inflicts injury on the face of B leaving a permanent scar on the face of B.A is guilty of offence of causing -"

The four options given for this question are as under:-

"(1) - Grievous hurt by sharp cutting object;

(2) - Grievous hurt by rash or negligent act;

(3) - simple hurt by sharp cutting object; and,

(4) - Simple hurt by rash or negligent act."

According to the model answer circulated by the High Court, Option 1 is the correct answer, whereas according to the petitioners Option 3 is the correct answer.

8. Shri Amitabh Gupta and Shri P. Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited our attention to the definition of 'decree' as contained in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), and argued that an order rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule of the Code is a 'deemed decree' as per the provisions of section 2(2) and, therefore, the option given by the petitioners to this question i.e. Option No. 3