Summary
The Supreme Court rejected challenges to the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2015 seeking moderation, revaluation, reduced qualifying marks and rounding of aggregate marks. One examiner had evaluated each particular part for all candidates, so the multi-examiner variability addressed by moderation did not arise. The rules provided no revaluation for that examination. The prescribed subject-wise and interview minima were upheld, and vacant posts or a narrow failure did not justify relaxation.
Issues
- Whether moderation or revaluation should be ordered for the 2015 examination.
- Whether the written or viva-voce qualifying thresholds should be relaxed.
- Whether an aggregate of 49.9% could be rounded to 50% for eligibility.
Held
- Moderation addresses variability where multiple examiners evaluate the same subject matter. Here each part was evaluated by a single examiner across candidates, giving a uniform yardstick; the cited multi-examiner cases did not justify moderation. (¶¶ 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 23)
- No revaluation provision existed when this examination was held. Suggestions made in CPIL after the examination could not introduce such a procedure retrospectively, though the High Court reported their implementation for subsequent examinations. Revaluation was therefore refused. (¶¶ 8, 15, 24)
- Interview assessment serves qualities beyond written academic knowledge, including practical capacity and personality. The prescribed 45% reserved-category interview minimum was not unreasonable. Vacancies remaining unfilled and the fact that one candidate failed did not compel relaxation, particularly when the High Court opposed it on institutional grounds and no malice was alleged. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Candidates who participated knowing the written and oral qualifying thresholds could not, merely on failing, turn around and challenge those prescriptions. (¶ 19)
- The minimum aggregate had to be achieved without rounding up; 49.9% could not be treated as 50% in the absence of authority for that relaxation. Subject-wise minima likewise ensured adequate knowledge across subjects, and high aggregate marks or a one-mark shortfall did not undermine the requirement or evaluation. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
Result
All writ petitions dismissed without costs; requests for moderation, revaluation, rounding and relaxation of qualifying marks rejected.