Rajasthan High Court: In a case wherein the petitions were filed entire selection process and evaluation method adopted in the Mains (Written) Examination for Direct Recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge, 2020, the Division Bench of Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal, JJ., directed the Examination Cell of the High Court to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of Eminent Jurists/Professors, and the expert committee would pick up twenty copies of each paper randomly and evaluate the same. The Court stated that while evaluating the answer-sheets, the Expert Committee would be free to take into consideration the length of the paper and the time provided for answering the questions. Further, the Examination Cell should mask the numbers, which the candidates obtained and then provide it to the Expert Committee. The Court clarified that exercise made in pursuance of this order would not have any bearing on the result of four candidates, who were already recruited to the District Judge Cadre. Further, taking into consideration the controversy and allegations regarding evaluation by Officers of the District Judge Cadre, the Court advised the Examination Cell to get the copies examined by Eminent Jurists/Professors in ensuing examinations.
Background
Since the issues involved in the present writ petitions were similar, the same were taken up together for adjudication.
In the present case, for Direct Recruitment to the post of District Judge, a total of eighty-five posts were advertised in 2020. Thereafter, on 25-07-2021, preliminary examination was held and subsequently after qualifying the examination, 788 candidates appeared in Mains (Written) Examination, however, only four candidates were declared pass and called for interview.
The petitioners contended that there was a conflict of interest between those who have evaluated the answer sheets and the examinees. The copies were checked by the Officers of the District Judge Cadre who are mainly Promotee Officers, and they had conflict of interest with the Direct recruits because in case Direct recruits were not recruited by direct recruitment, these posts were filled on ad-hoc basis by Promotee Officers. The petitioners further contended that the Head Examiners were also Promotee Officers and going by the marks awarded, it was evident that strict marking was done, and proper marks were not awarded even for correct answers.
Thus, the petitioners, who were practicing advocate, filed the present petition, challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method adopted in the Mains (Written) Examination for Direct Recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge, 2020.
Further, the present Court vide order dated 18-04-2023, requested Justice Govind Mathur, former Judge of Rajasthan High Court and former Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to look into the answer-sheets and communicate his views, suggestions and findings. Subsequently, the report was submitted.
Analysis, Law, and Consideration
The Court opined that the report was not an exhaustive report on the issues/questions referred for examination. Further, a specific request was made for examining the copies of four selected candidates in addition to the answer-sheets of Roll Nos. 510735 and 510777, but there was no finding in respect of answer-sheet of Roll No. 510735. The Court noted that in the report, there was a reference of ‘Roll No. 510 and 510777’, but it is not clear as to whether the answer-sheet of Roll No. 510735 was examined or not. Further, the Court noted that, though a question was framed in the report that whether the marks awarded by the evaluators were not appropriate, but it was not answered and merely a note was made, that nothing wrong was found in examination of answer-sheets by the examiners. Thus, the Court opined that the submitted report was neither a conclusive report on the issue nor it met the directions given by this Court in the order dated 18-04-2023.
The Court noted that out of 3000 candidates appearing pan India, only four candidates as against eighty-five vacancies had cleared the Mains (Written) Examination and candidates, who did not clear, had secured positions in other States Higher Judicial Service Examination. Further, the report submitted in compliance of the order dated 18-04-2023, was not exhaustive and conclusive, and the notified vacancies were still lying vacant, therefore, getting few answer-sheets evaluated by an Expert Committee would do justice not only to the Examinees, but to the Examiners as well.
Thus, the Court directed the Examination Cell of the High Court to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of Eminent Jurists/Professors, and the expert committee would pick up twenty copies of each paper randomly and evaluate the same. The Court stated that while evaluating the answer-sheets, the Expert Committee would be free to take into consideration the length of the paper and the time provided for answering the questions. Further, the Examination Cell should mask the numbers, which the candidates obtained and then provide it to the Expert Committee.
The Court stated that after the copies were evaluated, the Examination Cell should prepare a tabular chart depicting the marks awarded presently and the marks awarded after the copies were examined by the Expert Committee. The average difference in the marks, should then be brought to the notice of the High Court. The High Court, after considering the same, would take a decision regarding whether modification was required to be made in the result, whether bonus marks should be awarded to all the candidates, and whether all the answer-sheets were required to be re-evaluated.
The Court clarified that exercise made in pursuance of this order would not have any bearing on the result of four candidates, who were already recruited to the District Judge Cadre. The Court further directed that this exercise be completed expeditiously and all remaining vacancies in above advertisement would be subject to the outcome of the above exercise. Further, secrecy would be maintained regarding copies which were picked up for re-evaluation and marks awarded by the Expert Committee and tabular chart prepared by the Examination Cell shall not be provided to any candidate.
Taking into consideration the controversy and allegations regarding evaluation by Officers of the District Judge Cadre, the Court advised the Examination Cell to get the copies examined by Eminent Jurists/Professors in ensuing examinations.
[Nisha Gaur v. High Court of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 404, Order dated 14-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Alankrita Sharma and Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit; Vikrrant Singh Gurjar, Advocate; Chandra Kant Chauhan, Advocate; Girraj P Sharma with Shamsher Singh Shekhawat, Advocate; Sunil Samdaria with Arihant Samdaria, Advocate; Vaibhav Pancholi for Jagdish Narayan Sharma, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Vigyan Shah with Yash Joshi, Pulkit Bhardwaj and Harender Neel, Advocates
