Patna High Court: In the present case, a batch of four writ petitions were taken up peremptorily as the main examination for selection to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) was scheduled on 14-07-2024.The Division Bench of K. Vinod Chandran*, CJ., and Partha Sarthy, J., held that even if petitioners were granted marks for the questions challenged, they would not get sufficient marks which would permit their participation since the cut-off marks were more than what they would get. The Court dismissed the petitions and held that there was no reason to cause interference to the results of the screening test or the main examination that was scheduled on 14-07-2024.
Background
One of the petitions was filed by six candidates who objected to Question No. 9 and the answers to Question Nos. 48, 58, and 94. Counsel for petitioner contended that with respect to Petitioner 2, as per the OMR mark-sheet obtained, her total marks would go above the prescribed cut-off mark in her category. In one of the other petitions, in addition to the objections raised on the question and answers, the counsel submitted that even the candidates who obtained as less marks as 14 and 18 qualified in the preliminary test and were called for the final examination.
Specific reference was made to clause 6(f) of the advertisement to point out that the minimum qualifying marks in screening/preliminary test could be relaxed for reserved category candidates, including women candidates only by 5%. It was also pointed out from Rule 4-A(vi) of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 (‘1951 Rules’), that, if after carry over of vacancies, they were not filled up from the reserved categories in the third selection process, for number of suitable candidates of the reserved categories being less than the number of vacancies reserved for them even after the exchange formula being implemented in the earlier selection processes, the remaining back-log vacancies would be filled up by suitable general category candidates after de-reserving the vacancies. It was thus submitted that inclusion of candidates with very low marks confused eligibility with suitability.
Whereas Standing Counsel for the High Court submitted that there was no minimum qualifying mark provided for qualifying the preliminary examination/screening test. As per clause 5(c)(iii) of the 1951 Rules, the marks obtained in the screening test was relevant only for the purpose of eligibility to appear in the written test and the purpose of a screening test was only to shortlist the candidates for the main examination. The rule also provided that ten times the number of vacancies for appointment were to be called for the main examination.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the question of whether there was any case for conceding the reserved vacancies to the general category candidates could arise only after the selection process was over. The Court stated that the candidates were invited for the main examination based on the marks obtained, ensuring that ten times the vacancies in each category could participate in the main examination. In the case of Scheduled Caste (‘SC’) and Scheduled Tribe (‘ST’) candidates, no cut-off mark could be prescribed on a par with the other categories, since there were not enough candidates who got sufficient marks, to fulfill the requirement of permitting participation of candidates ten times the vacancy in that category.
The Court in relation to Question 94 stated that it already held in Ashutosh Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Patna, CWJC No. 9263 of 2024 (‘Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Case’), that candidates who marked both options, i.e., (c) and (d) had to be qualified. Thus, based on Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Case (supra), there was a revision of marks, and the revised results were also published wherein an additional 16 candidates were called for the main examination from the different categories.
The Court opined that there was no anomaly in providing a far lower cut-off mark to enable the SC and ST candidates to participate in the main examination; especially when the prescription in the rule was for calling for ten times the vacancies. Further, to comply with the stipulation of calling for ten times the vacancies and considering the fact that the marks obtained in the screening test would not determine the final eligibility, that, all the candidates belonging to SC and ST were allowed to participate in the main test. The Court noted that the number of SC and ST candidates who participated in the screening test itself was less than ten times the vacancies available to be filled up from those categories.
The Court agreed with the contention of the Standing Counsel that the question of carry forward of vacancies and conceding it to Un-Reserved categories as per Rule 4-A(vi) of the 1951 Rules was not a question to be considered at this stage. The Court opined that there could be no violation of the rule alleged only because all SC and ST candidates were permitted to participate in the main examination. It was only to ensure that all such candidates were given the opportunity to appear for the main examination. The final selection would depend only on the marks obtained at the main examination and interview, with minimum qualifying marks and relaxation.
The Court relied on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 (‘Ran Vijay Singh Case’), wherein emphasis was laid on the finality to the result of public examinations and speedy disposal and any judicial interference could be only after keeping in mind the larger public interest. Thus, the Court opined that it might not be proper to look at specific questions and the answers pointed out by the different petitioners and to re-evaluate each of the petitioners.
The Court observed that in Ran Vijay Singh Case (supra), the Supreme Court had also held that sympathy or compassion could not be a reason to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheet and the entire examination process could not be derailed only because some candidates were disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more, but that could not be helped since mathematical precision was not always possible. Thus, this Court stated that it would restrain itself from a detailed examination of the objections raised, but for completeness, it would briefly dwell upon the specific contentions.
The Court stated that for Question No. 94, the Court had come up with a fresh mark list and there need be no further consideration on the same. As far as Question No. 48 was concerned, option (b) was correct insofar as holding a marriage between two minors to be a voidable marriage.
The Court noted that the objection raised against Question No. 58 was as to whether the right to vote was a constitutional right or a legal right. The Court after noting the reference to the laws made by the legislature for fixing a date to determine the minimum age and providing for specified disqualifications, opined that the right to vote in India was a legal right or a statutory right.
In respect to Question No. 9, the Court stated that “the question was wrongly worded since what was intended, going by the answers, would be Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act and not Section 70”. The Court opined that even if all the benefit was granted, it could only be to those persons who had come before this Court. The Court held that even if petitioners were granted marks for the questions challenged, they would not get sufficient marks which would permit their participation since the cut-off marks were more than what they would get.
The Court stated that the contention that one of the petitioners had not been granted marks as per the answers shown in the OMR sheet, could not be entertained as there was no scope for re-evaluation since no such measure was mandated in the selection procedure.
In one of the other petitions, petitioner objected to the answer to Question No. 78. The question was as to which gas was absorbed by the plants, for which the Court accepted the option at (c), carbon dioxide. The Court again stated that even if marks for this question were obtained by the petitioner, he would not obtain the cut-off marks required for the general category candidates.
The Court dismissed the petitions and held that there was no reason to cause interference to the results of the screening test or the main examination that was scheduled for 14-07-2024.
[Gopal Bihari v. High Court of Patna, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 3772, decided on 12-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Alok Abhinav, Nityanand Mishra, Naman Sherstra, Gaurav Kumar, Diksha Kumari, Alok Kumar Jha, Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Avinash Chandra, Advocates
For the Respondents: Piyush Lall, Advocate; Addl. Advocate General 3
Please add my name as petitioner advocate Alok Abhinav) and correct name other Advocates Diksha Kumari and Naman Sherstra