Sonal Gupta & Ors. vs Registrar General, Rajashtan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.

2024 INSC 830 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (C) 708 of 2024

Sonal Gupta & Ors. …Petitioners

Versus

Registrar General, Rajashtan High Court Jodhpur & Anr. …Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No(s). 706/2024

With

W.P.(C) No(s). 711/2024

With

Diary No(s). 48927/2024

With

Diary No(s). 48993/2024

And With

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No(s). 709/2024 Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2024.11.08 17:20:26 IST Reason: Page 1 of 9 JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1. A hundred and nine Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 32 of the Constitution. The Petitioners are candidates who appeared for

the main examination of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 which was

conducted on 31 August 2024 and 1 September 2024. Their grievance is that

they have been awarded marks arbitrarily in the subjective exam paper, namely,

the Language Paper – II (English Essay) which has led to them falling below

the cut off marks for the interview round. A petition for special leave is also

preferred against an order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 19 October

2024 dismissing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on identical

issues in light of these proceedings having commenced before this Court. The

Petitioners seek the quashing of the results of the main exams and re-

evaluation of the answer sheets by an expert committee. Since the issues are

identical, the petitions are being disposed of together.

Factual Background

2. The Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules 20101 stipulate that recruitment to the

posts of Civil Judges shall be made directly on the basis of a competitive

examination.2 The scheme of the selection process takes place in three stages,

namely, (i) the preliminary examination; (ii) the main examination; and (iii) the

1 ‘RJS Rules’.

2 Rule 16, RJS Rules.

Page 2 of 9 interview round.3 The scheme of the written examination is provided in

Schedule IV of the RJS Rules. The High Court of Rajasthan issued an

Advertisement numbered RHC/Exam Cell/RJS/CJC/2024/783 which notified

the Civil Judge Cadre 2024 examination to fill two hundred and twenty-two

vacancies.

3. The Petitioners qualified at the preliminary examination which was conducted

on 23 June 2024. The main examination was divided into four parts, namely, (i)

Law Paper – I (Civil); (ii) Law Paper – II (Criminal); (iii) Language Paper – I

(Hindi Essay); and (iv) Language Paper – II (English Essay). The law papers

were to be marked out of one hundred each and the language papers were to

be marked out of fifty each. Three questions were required to be answered in

the English Essay. For all candidates, the first question was assessed by a

District Judge level officer while the second question and the third question

respectively were directed to be assessed by distinct sets of English Professors

working in a Government College to ensure the fairness of the process.

4. The RJS Rules stipulate that the minimum cut off marks in law papers for

qualifying for the viva voce shall be 35% for the unreserved category and 30%

for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories. Candidates must

have an aggregate of 40% (35% for SC/ST candidates) to be eligible for the

interview. No minimum marks are stipulated for language papers.

3 Rule 20, RJS Rules.

Page 3 of 9

5. The Petitioners appeared for the examination on 31 August 2024 and 1

September 2024. The results were declared on 1 October 2024. Six hundred

and thirty-eight candidates qualified for the interview stage of the recruitment

process. When the Petitioners received their score cards on 4 October 2024,

they noticed that their marks in the Language Paper-II (English Essay) were

fatally low – ranging between zero and fifteen out of fifty marks. Aggrieved by

the award of low marks in the English Essay, the Petitioners moved this Court

for re-evaluation of the answer papers by an expert committee and setting aside

of the results which were notified on 4 October 2024.

6. The question which arises for consideration is whether there is any arbitrary

variation in the marks obtained by candidates in the language examination

which may affect the integrity of the overall results of the examination.

7. The Petitioners argued that there are serious discrepancies in the marks

awarded to candidates for the English Essay examination. They submit as

follows:

a. In the absence of minimum qualifying marks for the language papers, the

marking has been skewed. Candidates who have otherwise qualified in

the law papers have been awarded unreasonably low marks in the

English essay paper;

b. Candidates who have attempted the paper have also been awarded zero

marks. Since the paper is subjective in nature, the award of no marks is

inexplicable;

Page 4 of 9 c. The limited space in the Question Paper-cum-Answer Booklet hindered

the ability of candidates to answer appropriately; and

d. Over fourteen thousand answer sheets were checked by a limited

number of examiners within a span of one month between the date of

examination and the declaration of results.

Procedural history

8. To address the issues which have arisen in this case, the Court issued notice

on 18 October 2024 and directed the answer sheets in the English essay of

those candidates who have been awarded below fifteen marks to be produced

before the Court. Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General placed a note on record

indicating that of the 3534 candidates who appeared in the English Essay

examination, 3384 or 95.76% of the candidates have secured between zero

and fifteen marks. We found it necessary to scan and analyse the data to

inspect whether arbitrary variations are discernible.

9. Accordingly, on 21 October 2024 this Court directed that a tabulated statement

be placed before the Court indicating the marks which were secured in the Law

Paper-I (Civil) and Law Paper-II (Criminal) respectively by those candidates

who appeared in the English medium, who secured between zero and fifteen

marks in the English Essay and who have not qualified for the interview stage.

The trunks containing the record were directed to be kept in the custody of the

Secretary General of this Court. Pursuant to our directions, the High Court of

Rajasthan has produced a tabulated sheet running into seventy-three pages.

Page 5 of 9 Analysis

10. In Sanjay Singh v. UP Public Services Commission4 this court opined that a

degree of variation may occur when a large number of candidates are evaluated

through an examination by a number of evaluators. However, the likelihood of

discrepancy arises when a wide variation can be made out from the results. In

Pranav Verma v. High Court of P&H,5 this Court has held that the likelihood

of discrepancy is reduced where the evaluation process is uniform. The Court

held as follows:

“14. … We are of the view that evaluation done by multiple evaluators i.e. one evaluator examining and marking one question in all the marksheets, ensures uniformity and prevents chance grading. Every candidate's answers are marked on same parameters by the same examiner. There can possibly be no other better method to ensure uniformity in evaluation. …

15. The marking criteria and evaluation method was strict but it was so for everyone. This was maybe for the reason that one evaluator checked one answer in each script and in this manner the entire lot of scripts were marked. The Evaluators failed to keep a pragmatic view that source of recruitment was likely to be the same in a fresh attempt also and that candidates had only 8.5 minutes to answer each question and time constraint did not allow them to give their best of performance. Even those candidates who covered all aspects briefly were not awarded proper marks. Unlike the hypothetical illustration given in Sanjay Singh case, it was not a case where some candidates were subjected to strict marking and others had an advantage of lenient marking, so as to draw an inference that the evaluation method was discriminatory or arbitrary.”

4 (2007) 3 SCC 720.

5 (2020) 15 SCC 377.

Page 6 of 9 11. In Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC,6 this Court has held that in the

absence of any evidence that meritorious candidates have been deprived of

their marks deliberately, the Court cannot interfere. This Court held that merely

because candidates who cleared the preliminary exam did not further clear the

main exam is no ground to infer fault on part of the examining authority.

12. In the present case the first question was assessed by a District Judge level

officer while the second question and the third question respectively were

directed to be assessed by distinct sets of English teachers working in a

Government College to ensure the fairness of the process. The Petitioners have

not demonstrated any marked difference in the strictness of evaluation which

was undergone by the candidates who have qualified for the interview. Absent

any significant variation, the process of marking itself is not suspect. The

question which remains is whether lower marks were deliberately awarded in

the English essay exam.

13. In the interest of justice and fairness, we have perused the answer sheets which

have been placed for the scrutiny of the Court by officers of the High Court of

Rajasthan who were present before this Court on 25 October 2024. Based on

the nature of the answers in the English Essay, we have no doubt that there is

no substance, even prima facie, in the allegations that there was a deliberate

low marking in the English Essay paper. The records of the answer sheet were

6 (2013) 12 SCC 489.

Page 7 of 9 directed to be placed before this Court. The answer sheets were duly perused

and remained in the safe keeping of the Secretary General of this Court.

14. Based on the tabulated position which has been disclosed before the Court, we

find no statistical discrepancy that would warrant the intervention of this Court

under Article 32 of the Constitution. The marking of the essay does not suffer

from an infirmity that would cast doubt on the overall assessment of the English

Essay answer sheets. The petitions, therefore, fail to qualify the parameters

followed by this Court in a consistent line of precedent.7

Conclusion

15. We, therefore, decline to entertain these petitions. The Petitions shall

accordingly stand dismissed. If any candidate has an individual grievance, save

and except for the issue which has been concluded by this order, liberty is

granted to move the High Court of Rajasthan in the exercise of its jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution.

16. The Secretary General may now hand over the trunks containing the graded

answer sheets of the English Essay to the team from the High Court of

Rajasthan who has produced the files.

7 Sanjay Singh v. UP Public Services Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720; Prashant R Chakrawar v. UPSC,

(2013) 12 SCC 489; Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta, (2015) 11 SCC 395; CPIL v. High Court of Delhi, (2017) 11 SCC 456; and Pavan Verma v. High Court of P&H, (2020) 15 SCC 377. Page 8 of 9

17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

…..…..…....…........……………….…........CJI.

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

……..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [J B Pardiwala]

……..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Manoj Misra]

New Delhi;

October 24, 2024

-S-

Page 9 of 9