Bombay High Court: In writ petitions concerning the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Competitive Examination—2022, the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar*, CJ., and Gautam A. Ankhad, J., held that while candidates may be permitted to peruse their answer-books to ensure fairness, there exists no enforceable right to re-evaluation or recalculation of marks dehors the Rules. Emphasising the sanctity of the judicial service exam, the Court observed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may be exercised only in exceptional circumstances to avoid grave injustice. Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of in those terms.
Background:
The petitions were filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the authorities to furnish copies of evaluated answer sheets and to re-evaluate the marks awarded in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Competitive Examination—2022. The petitioners contended that refusal to provide answer-books under Right to Information (‘RTI’) was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.
It was argued that the evaluation was irregular and perfunctory, with answers marked uniformly without individualised assessment. The petitioners stressed that permitting inspection of answer-books would not breach confidentiality and that writ jurisdiction could be invoked in situations where correct answers were wrongly treated as incorrect.
However, the respondents submitted that moderation was permissible only for candidates scoring between 40 to 50 marks and that no legal right existed for re-evaluation absent statutory provision.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that under Rule 6(3)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, a list of candidates eligible for the appointment shall be prepared in the order of merit on the basis of the cumulative marks secured by the candidates. It was highlighted that the sanctity of the competitive examination is to be maintained and a writ cannot be issued to satisfy every doubt of the aggrieved candidate.
The Court noted that earlier decisions permitting moderation or inspection were rendered in the facts of those cases and do not constitute the precedents and were rendered in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was observed that a mandamus shall not lie if a person does not have an enforceable right flowing from the Statute, Rules or Government Notification/Circular.
The Court further observed that the Writ Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case where it is prima-facie demonstrable that it would occasion a failure of justice if the Court does not grant indulgence in the matter. Referring to High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, (2019) 16 SCC 663, the Court noted that if there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer, the Writ Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to avoid grave injustice to a candidate. However, any doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body.
Ultimately, the Court emphasised that having regard to the judicial discipline and propriety which has a universal application for maintaining uniformity in the judicial system, the Court shall permit the petitioners to peruse their answer-books only for the purpose as indicated in Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (supra). The petitions were thus disposed of in those terms, with no order as to costs.
[Kartiki Awantika v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 11058 of 2025, decided on 24-12-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Abhijeet Desai a/w Mohini A. Rehpade, Vijay Singh, Daksha Punghera & Karan Gajra i/b Desai Legal LLP, Advocates
For the Respondents: O.A.Chandurkar, Addl. Government Pleader a/w Pooja Patil, AGP, Pooja Patil, AGP, M. P. Thakur, AGP, Ashutosh M. Kulkarni a/w Sarthak Diwan & Meghana Chavan, Advocates