Summary
The Court declined to invalidate a judicial-service examination but used Article 142 to award uniform grace marks in two civil-law papers after expert review showed unduly strict marking and severe time constraints. It rejected fresh re-evaluation and disclosure of written marks before interviews. Revised results and completion of selection were directed, followed by recruitment for remaining and anticipated vacancies.
Issues
- Whether the examination or evaluation was discriminatory or arbitrary.
- Whether moderation, re-evaluation or disclosure of written marks before interviews was warranted.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaExceptional prejudice from strict marking, longstanding vacancies and prolonged hardship justified uniform grace marks to achieve complete justice. (¶¶ 21, 22, 28)
Held
- One evaluator marking the same question across all scripts ensured uniformity. Although marking was strict and lacked a holistic appreciation of time constraints, it did not discriminate between candidates, and no mala fide examination practice was established. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- On these facts, moderation was appropriate notwithstanding absence of examiner variability. Twenty marks in Civil Law-I and ten in Civil Law-II balanced the demonstrated strictness; the demand for fifty marks was unjustified. There was no obligation to fill every post without suitable candidates. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Independent re-evaluation was declined given the expert examination already undertaken, further delay and absence of a re-evaluation provision in the rules. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- Prior disclosure of written marks could bias interview assessment rather than ensure impartiality. Interview performance remained independently important, and composition of the committee was within the Chief Justice’s administrative prerogative. (¶¶ 23, 27)
- Grace marks applied to all candidates. Fresh written results were required within two weeks and selection within four weeks thereafter, with completion in all respects before 15 February 2020. Remaining, intervening and six-month anticipated vacancies were to be advertised promptly and filled on the prescribed recruitment timeline. (¶ 28)
Result
Writ petitions partly allowed. All candidates were awarded twenty grace marks in Civil Law-I and ten in Civil Law-II; fresh results and timely completion of selection directed, with further recruitment for remaining and anticipated vacancies. Re-evaluation and pre-interview disclosure of written marks declined; pending applications disposed of.