Summary
Candidates in the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 main examination challenged their very low marks in the English Essay paper and sought re-evaluation. After examining tabulated data and the answer sheets themselves, the Supreme Court found no statistical discrepancy or deliberate low marking and dismissed the petitions under Article 32, leaving individual grievances on other issues to the High Court.
Issues
- Whether there was an arbitrary variation in the marks awarded in the English Essay paper of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 main examination affecting the integrity of the results.
- Whether lower marks were deliberately awarded in the English Essay paper so as to warrant quashing of the results and re-evaluation by an expert committee.
Provisions considered
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that, on the tabulated data and its own perusal of the answer sheets, there was no statistical discrepancy or infirmity in the marking that would warrant intervention under Article 32, and declined to entertain the petitions. (¶¶ 1, 14, 15)
- Rules 16 and 20 and Schedule IV, Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010Noted as providing for direct recruitment of Civil Judges by competitive examination in three stages (preliminary, main and interview), with minimum marks prescribed for the law papers and aggregate but none for the language papers. (¶¶ 2, 4)
Held
- Some variation is inevitable when many evaluators mark a large number of candidates; a likelihood of discrepancy arises only where a wide variation is shown, and it is reduced where evaluation is uniform, as when one evaluator marks one question across all scripts. (¶ 10)
- Absent evidence that meritorious candidates were deliberately deprived of marks, the Court cannot interfere, and the failure of candidates who cleared the preliminary stage to clear the main examination is no ground to infer fault on the part of the examining body. (¶ 11)
- Since each question of the English Essay was assessed by a distinct evaluator or set of evaluators and the petitioners showed no marked difference in strictness of evaluation compared with candidates who qualified, the marking process was not suspect. (¶ 12)
- Having itself perused the answer sheets and the tabulated marks, the Court found no substance, even prima facie, in the allegation of deliberate low marking and no statistical discrepancy casting doubt on the overall assessment. (¶¶ 8, 9, 13, 14)
Result
Writ petitions and connected matters dismissed; liberty granted to any candidate with an individual grievance, other than the issue concluded by this order, to approach the High Court under Article 226. Answer sheets directed to be returned to the High Court's team.