{"file_name": "2024_10_2240_2247_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2240 : 2024 INSC 830\n\nSonal Gupta & Ors. \nv. \nRegistrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.\n\n(Writ Petition (C) No. 708 of 2024)\n\n24 October 2024\n\n[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, \nJ.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nWhether  there  is  any  arbitrary  variation  in  marks  obtained  by \ncandidates  in  the  language  examination  for  the  Rajasthan  Civil \nJudge  Cadre  2024  which  may  affect  the  integrity  of  the  overall \nresults of the examination.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nRajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 – Petitioners qualified \nfor  main  examination  of  the  Rajasthan  Civil  Judge  Cadre \n2024 – Did not meet the cut-off marks for the interview – Writ \npetitions  under  Article  32  for  quashing  of  results  of  main \nexamination  and  re-evaluation  by  expert  committee  –  No \nmarked difference in the strictness of evaluation undergone \nby candidates who qualified for the interview – Absent any \nsignificant  variation,  the  process  of  marking  not  suspect  – \nAnswer  sheets  duly  perused  by  the  Court  –  Marking  of  the \nessay does not suffer from an infirmity that would cast doubt \non  the  overall  assessment  of  the  English  Essay  answer \nsheets – Petitions dismissed:\n\nHeld:  1.  Petitioners  qualified  for  the  main  examination  for  the \nRajasthan  Civil  Judge  Cadre  2024  –  Rule  20  of  the  Rajasthan \nJudicial Services Rules 2010 (RJS Rules) stipulates the scheme of \nthe selection process – Main examination divided into four parts: (i) \nLaw Paper – I (Civil); (ii) Law Paper – II (Criminal); (iii) Language \nPaper  –  I  (Hindi  Essay);  and  (iv)  Language  Paper  –  II  (English \nEssay) – Language papers to be marked out of fifty each – Three \nquestions were required to be answered in the English Essay – For \nall candidates, the first question was assessed by a District Judge \n\n* Author\n\n\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n2241\n\nlevel  officer  –  The  second  and  the  third  questions  respectively \nassessed  by  distinct  sets  of  English  Professors  working  in  a \nGovernment College to ensure fairness of the process – Minimum \naggregate of 40% (35% for SC/ST candidates) for candidates to \nbe  eligible  for  the  interview  –  No  minimum  marks  for  language \npaper – Petitioners aggrieved by fatally low marks in the English \nEssay  that  ranged  between  zero  and  fifteen  out  of  fifty  –  Writ \nPetitions  filed  under Article  32  for  quashing  of  results  of  main \nexamination and for re-evaluation of answer papers by an expert \ncommittee – Petitions dismissed [Paras 3-5]\n\n2.  Note  placed  on  record  indicated  95.76%  of  the  candidates \nsecured between zero and fifteen marks – Tabulated statement filed \nby High Court of Rajasthan indicating marks secured in the Law \nPaper-I (Civil) and Law Paper-II (Criminal) by those candidates who \nsecured between zero and fifteen marks in the English Essay and \nwho did not qualify for the interview stage – Petitioners have not \ndemonstrated any marked difference in the strictness of evaluation \nundergone  by  candidates  who  have  qualified  for  the  interview  – \nAbsent  any  significant  variation,  the  process  of  marking  itself  is \nnot suspect. [Paras 8-12]\n\n3. Answer sheets perused by Court – No substance in the allegations \nthat there was deliberate low marking in the English Essay paper – \nNo statistical discrepancy that would warrant intervention – Marking \nof the essay does not suffer from an infirmity that would cast doubt \non the overall assessment of the English Essay answer sheets – \nPetitions dismissed – Liberty given to candidates having individual \ngrievances, except for issue concluded by this order, to move the \nHigh Court under Article 226. [Paras 13-15]\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nSanjay  Singh  v.  UP  Public  Services  Commission  [2007]  1  SCR \n235 : [2007] 3 SCC 720; Pranav Verma v. High Court of P&H [2019] \n15 SCR 43 : [2020] 15 SCC 377; Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar \nv. UPSC [2013] 12 SCC 489; Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of \nCalcutta  [2015]  2  SCR  480  :  [2015]  11  SCC  395;  CPIL  v.  High \nCourt of Delhi [2017] 11 SCC 456 – relied on.\n\nRajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010.\n\nList of Acts\n\nSonal Gupta & Ors. v.  Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.\f2242 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nList of Keywords\n\nExamination process; Marking; Arbitrary variation; Wide variation; \nLikelihood of discrepancy; Uniform evaluation process; Interference \nin examination process.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 708 of 2024\n\n(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)\n\nWith\n\nW.P.(C) Nos. 706 and 711 of 2024, Diary Nos. 48927 and 48993 \nof 2024 and W.P.(C) No. 709 of 2024\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nJaideep  Gupta,  Gaurav  Agarwal,  Sr.  Advs.,  Saket  Sikri,   \nMs.  Ekta  K  Sikri,  Vikalp  Mudgal,  Ajaypal  Singh  Kullar,  Kshitij \nMudgal, Ms. Anshul Rajora, Ms. Sakshi Gaur, Ms. A. Sumathi, Ms. \nIla Shikhar Sheel, Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Siddharth Banerjee, Saurabh \nSharma, Mayank Barua, Ms. Puja Shaw, Mrs. Arpana Soni, Mohit \nYadav, Mrs. Aarti Pal, Keshav Dev, Vijay Kumar, Chand Qureshi,  \nB. Shravanth Shanker, Siddharth Bapna, Rahul Jajoo, Gaurav Kumar, \nNaman Sherstra, Rajat Kumar, Devesh Kumar, Saurabh Poonia, \nVinod  Sharma, Apoorv  Shukla,  Puneet  Chahar,  Ms.  Prabhleen   \nA. Shukla, Ayush Acharjee, Advs. for the Petitioners.\n\nTushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Digvijay Dam, Vishal Meghwal, \nMukul Kumar, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Anurag \nYadav, Advs. for the Respondents.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nJudgment\n\nDr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J\n\n1.  A  hundred  and  nine  Petitioners  have  invoked  the  jurisdiction  of \nthis  Court  under Article  32  of  the  Constitution. The  Petitioners  are \ncandidates who appeared for the main examination of the Rajasthan \nCivil Judge Cadre 2024 which was conducted on 31 August 2024 and \n1 September 2024. Their grievance is that they have been awarded \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n2243\n\nmarks arbitrarily in the subjective exam paper, namely, the Language \nPaper – II (English Essay) which has led to them falling below the \ncut off marks for the interview round. A petition for special leave is \nalso preferred against an order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated \n19 October 2024 dismissing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the \nConstitution on identical issues in light of these proceedings having \ncommenced  before  this  Court.  The  Petitioners  seek  the  quashing \nof  the  results  of  the  main  exams  and  re-evaluation  of  the  answer \nsheets by an expert committee. Since the issues are identical, the \npetitions are being disposed of together.\n\nFactual Background\n\n2.  The  Rajasthan  Judicial  Services  Rules  20101  stipulate  that \nrecruitment to the posts of Civil Judges shall be made directly on \nthe basis of a competitive examination.2 The scheme of the selection \nprocess  takes  place  in  three  stages,  namely,  (i)  the  preliminary \nexamination; (ii) the main examination; and (iii) the interview round.3 \nThe  scheme  of  the  written  examination  is  provided  in  Schedule \nIV  of  the  RJS  Rules.  The  High  Court  of  Rajasthan  issued  an \nAdvertisement numbered RHC/Exam Cell/RJS/CJC/2024/783 which \nnotified the Civil Judge Cadre 2024 examination to fill two hundred \nand twenty-two vacancies. \n\n3.  The Petitioners qualified at the preliminary examination which was \nconducted  on  23  June  2024.  The  main  examination  was  divided \ninto four parts, namely, (i) Law Paper – I (Civil); (ii) Law Paper – II \n(Criminal); (iii) Language Paper – I (Hindi Essay); and (iv) Language \nPaper – II (English Essay). The law papers were to be marked out of \none hundred each and the language papers were to be marked out \nof fifty each. Three questions were required to be answered in the \nEnglish Essay. For all candidates, the first question was assessed by \na District Judge level officer while the second question and the third \nquestion respectively were directed to be assessed by distinct sets \nof English Professors working in a Government College to ensure \nthe fairness of the process. \n\n1 \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\n‘RJS Rules’.\n\nRule 16, RJS Rules.\n\nRule 20, RJS Rules.\n\nSonal Gupta & Ors. v.  Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.\f2244 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n4.  The RJS Rules stipulate that the minimum cut off marks in law papers \nfor  qualifying  for  the  viva  voce  shall  be  35%  for  the  unreserved \ncategory  and  30%  for  the  Scheduled  Caste  and  Scheduled  Tribe \ncategories. Candidates must have an aggregate of 40% (35% for SC/\nST candidates) to be eligible for the interview. No minimum marks \nare stipulated for language papers.\n\n5.  The Petitioners appeared for the examination on 31 August 2024 \nand 1 September 2024. The results were declared on 1 October \n2024.  Six  hundred  and  thirty-eight  candidates  qualified  for  the \ninterview stage of the recruitment process. When the Petitioners \nreceived  their  score  cards  on  4  October  2024,  they  noticed  that \ntheir marks in the Language Paper-II (English Essay) were fatally \nlow – ranging between zero and fifteen out of fifty marks. Aggrieved \nby  the  award  of  low  marks  in  the  English  Essay,  the  Petitioners \nmoved  this  Court  for  re-evaluation  of  the  answer  papers  by  an \nexpert  committee  and  setting  aside  of  the  results  which  were \nnotified on 4 October 2024.\n\n6.  The  question  which  arises  for  consideration  is  whether  there  is \nany  arbitrary  variation  in  the  marks  obtained  by  candidates  in  the \nlanguage  examination  which may affect the integrity of the overall \nresults of the examination. \n\n7.  The Petitioners argued that there are serious discrepancies in the \nmarks  awarded  to  candidates  for  the  English  Essay  examination. \nThey submit as follows: \n\na. \n\nIn the absence of minimum qualifying marks for the language \npapers, the marking has been skewed. Candidates who have \notherwise  qualified  in  the  law  papers  have  been  awarded \nunreasonably low marks in the English essay paper;\n\nb.  Candidates  who  have  attempted  the  paper  have  also  been \nawarded zero marks. Since the paper is subjective in nature, \nthe award of no marks is inexplicable;\n\nc. \n\nThe limited space in the Question Paper-cum-Answer Booklet \nhindered the ability of candidates to answer appropriately; and\n\nd.  Over fourteen thousand answer sheets were checked by a limited \nnumber of examiners within a span of one month between the \ndate of examination and the declaration of results. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n2245\n\nProcedural history \n\n8.  To  address  the  issues  which  have  arisen  in  this  case,  the  Court \nissued notice on 18 October 2024 and directed the answer sheets \nin the English essay of those candidates who have been awarded \nbelow  fifteen  marks  to  be  produced  before  the  Court.  Mr  Tushar \nMehta, Solicitor General placed a note on record indicating that of \nthe 3534 candidates who appeared in the English Essay examination, \n3384 or 95.76% of the candidates have secured between zero and \nfifteen marks. We found it necessary to scan and analyse the data \nto inspect whether arbitrary variations are discernible.\n\n9.  Accordingly, on 21 October 2024 this Court directed that a tabulated \nstatement  be  placed  before  the  Court  indicating  the  marks  which \nwere secured in the Law Paper-I (Civil) and Law Paper-II (Criminal) \nrespectively  by  those  candidates  who  appeared  in  the  English \nmedium, who secured between zero and fifteen marks in the English \nEssay and who have not qualified for the interview stage. The trunks \ncontaining  the  record  were  directed  to  be  kept  in  the  custody  of \nthe Secretary General of this Court. Pursuant to our directions, the \nHigh  Court  of  Rajasthan  has  produced  a  tabulated  sheet  running \ninto seventy-three pages. \n\nAnalysis\n\n10. \n\nIn  Sanjay  Singh  v.  UP  Public  Services  Commission4  this  court \nopined that a degree of variation may occur when a large number \nof  candidates  are  evaluated  through  an  examination  by  a  number \nof evaluators. However, the likelihood of discrepancy arises when a \nwide variation can be made out from the results. In Pranav Verma v. \nHigh  Court  of  P&H,5  this  Court  has  held  that  the  likelihood  of \ndiscrepancy  is  reduced  where  the  evaluation  process  is  uniform. \nThe Court held as follows:\n\n“14. … We are of the view that evaluation done by multiple \nevaluators i.e. one evaluator examining and marking one \nquestion  in  all  the  marksheets,  ensures  uniformity  and \nprevents  chance  grading.  Every  candidate’s  answers \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n(2007) 3 SCC 720\n\n(2020) 15 SCC 377\n\nSonal Gupta & Ors. v.  Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.\f2246 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nare marked on same parameters by the same examiner. \nThere can possibly be no other better method to ensure \nuniformity in evaluation. …\n\n15.  The  marking  criteria  and  evaluation  method  was \nstrict but it was so for everyone. This was maybe for the \nreason that one evaluator checked one answer in each \nscript  and  in  this  manner  the  entire  lot  of  scripts  were \nmarked. The Evaluators failed to keep a pragmatic view \nthat source of recruitment was likely to be the same in \na  fresh  attempt  also  and  that  candidates  had  only  8.5 \nminutes  to  answer  each  question  and  time  constraint \ndid  not  allow  them  to  give  their  best  of  performance. \nEven  those  candidates  who  covered  all  aspects  briefly \nwere not awarded proper marks. Unlike the hypothetical \nillustration given in Sanjay Singh case, it was not a case \nwhere some candidates were subjected to strict marking \nand others had an advantage of lenient marking, so as \nto  draw  an  inference  that  the  evaluation  method  was \ndiscriminatory or arbitrary.”\n\n11. \n\n12. \n\nIn  Prashant  Ramesh  Chakkarwar  v.  UPSC,6  this  Court  has  held \nthat in the absence of any evidence that meritorious candidates have \nbeen deprived of their marks deliberately, the Court cannot interfere. \nThis  Court  held  that  merely  because  candidates  who  cleared  the \npreliminary exam did not further clear the main exam is no ground \nto infer fault on part of the examining authority. \n\nIn  the  present  case  the  first  question  was  assessed  by  a  District \nJudge level officer while the second question and the third question \nrespectively were directed to be assessed by distinct sets of English \nteachers  working  in  a  Government  College  to  ensure  the  fairness \nof the process. The Petitioners have not demonstrated any marked \ndifference  in  the  strictness  of  evaluation  which  was  undergone  by \nthe  candidates  who  have  qualified  for  the  interview. Absent  any \nsignificant variation, the process of marking itself is not suspect. The \nquestion  which  remains  is  whether  lower  marks  were  deliberately \nawarded in the English essay exam.\n\n6 \n\n(2013) 12 SCC 489\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n2247\n\n13. \n\nIn the interest of justice and fairness, we have perused the answer \nsheets  which  have  been  placed  for  the  scrutiny  of  the  Court  by \nofficers  of  the  High  Court  of  Rajasthan  who  were  present  before \nthis Court on 25 October 2024. Based on the nature of the answers \nin the English Essay, we have no doubt that there is no substance, \neven prima facie, in the allegations that there was a deliberate low \nmarking  in  the  English  Essay  paper.  The  records  of  the  answer \nsheet  were  directed  to  be  placed  before  this  Court.  The  answer \nsheets were duly perused and remained in the safe keeping of the \nSecretary General of this Court. \n\n14.  Based  on  the  tabulated  position  which  has  been  disclosed  before \nthe Court, we find no statistical discrepancy that would warrant the \nintervention  of  this  Court  under Article  32  of  the  Constitution.  The \nmarking  of  the  essay  does  not  suffer  from  an  infirmity  that  would \ncast doubt on the overall assessment of the English Essay answer \nsheets. The petitions, therefore, fail to qualify the parameters followed \nby this Court in a consistent line of precedent.7\n\nConclusion\n\n15.  We,  therefore,  decline  to  entertain  these  petitions.  The  Petitions \nshall accordingly stand dismissed. If any candidate has an individual \ngrievance, save and except for the issue which has been concluded \nby this order, liberty is granted to move the High Court of Rajasthan \nin the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n\n16.  The  Secretary  General  may  now  hand  over  the  trunks  containing \nthe graded answer sheets of the English Essay to the team from the \nHigh Court of Rajasthan who has produced the files.\n\n17.  Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. \n\nResult of the case: Petitions dismissed.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by:  Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor \n\n(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)\n\n7 \n\nSanjay Singh v. UP Public Services Commission (2007) 3 SCC 720; Prashant R Chakrawar v. UPSC \n(2013) 12 SCC 489; Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta (2015) 11 SCC 395; CPIL v. High Court \nof Delhi (2017) 11 SCC 456; and Pavan Verma v. High Court of P&H (2020) 15 SCC 377.\n\nSonal Gupta & Ors. v.  Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.\f"}