LexPRANAV VERMA & OTHERS versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 43 PRANAV VERMA & OTHERS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2019) DECEMBER 13, 2019 [S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.] Service Law: Selection – Interference with selection process — Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge wherein total 1195 candidates appeared and only 9 cleared the exam – Unsuccessful candidates challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method adopted therein and sought quashing of the result and re- evaluation by independent expert Committee – Held: No discriminatory or malafide practice was undertaken while conducting the exam or its following processes – Officials of the High Court ensured adequate security measures – Procedure of evaluation was ‘uniform’ – Every candidate’s answers were marked on same parameters by the same examiner – There was no examiner variability but marking and evaluation method was strict but it was so for everyone, thus, the option of moderation is applied – Alternative II of the Report by Justice Sikri is adopted, awarding 20 marks in Civil Law I and 10 marks in Civil law II – Prayer for re- evaluation by an Independent Expert Committee cannot be accepted – Also petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, cannot be accepted since that would invite bias or favourtism affecting the impartial evaluation of a candidate in viva-voce – Thus, respondents directed to award 20 grace marks in Civil Law-I paper and 10 grace marks in Civil Law-II paper to all the candidates – Issuance of direction to prepare fresh results of the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge and complete the selection process within the stipulated period – Constitution of India – Art. 32 - Judicial service. Partly allowing the Writ Petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, Justice Sikri critically examined the selection process as well as the evaluation method [2019] 15 S.C.R. 43 43 A B C D E F G H 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R. and it is explicit from his report that the procedure of evaluation was ‘uniform’. Evaluation done by multiple evaluators i.e. one Evaluator examining and marking one question in all the mark– sheets, ensures uniformity and prevents chance grading. Every candidate’s answers are marked on same parameters by the same examiner. There can possibly be no other better method to ensure uniformity in evaluation. The petitioners have stated that as per the information received via RTI no model ‘answer key’ was present. It gives more credance to the afore–stated method of evaluation as no model ‘answer key’ ought to be devised for the Main Exam, the purpose whereof is not to just assess the knowledge of candidates but also to evaluate their analytical ability. In the instant case, there was no Examiner Variability, therefore, Justice Sikri very aptly remarked that, “this was well intended move to attain uniformity in evaluation”. This method ensures equal level play field for all candidates. The only setback was lack of holistic view and lack of realistic expectations in the examiner’s mind, for which there are adequate remedies. [Para 14][60-G-H; 61-A-C] 1.2 The marking criteria and evaluation method was strict but it was so for everyone. This was may be for the reason that one Evaluator checked one answer in each script and in this manner the entire lot of scripts were marked. The Evaluators failed to keep a pragmatic view that source of recruitment was likely to be the same in a fresh attempt also and that candidates had only 8.5 minutes to answer each question and time constraint did not allow them to give their best of performance. Even those candidates who covered all aspects briefly were not awarded proper marks. It was not a case where some candidates were subjected to strict marking and others had an advantage of lenient marking, so as to draw an inference that the evaluation method was discriminatory or arbitrary. [Para 15][61-D-E] 1.3 It has been found as a matter of fact that the officials of the High Court ensured adequate security measures such as keeping the answer scripts in iron boxes under round–the–clock security and CCTV cameras. Hence, it is just and fair to hold that no discriminatory or malafide practice was undertaken while A B C D E F G H 45 conducting the exam or its following processes. [Para 16][61-F- G] 2.1 Considering that the marking was strict but not di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.