LexSONAL GUPTA & ORS. versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2240 : 2024 INSC 830 Sonal Gupta & Ors. v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr. (Writ Petition (C) No. 708 of 2024) 24 October 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether there is any arbitrary variation in marks obtained by candidates in the language examination for the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 which may affect the integrity of the overall results of the examination. Headnotes† Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 – Petitioners qualified for main examination of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 – Did not meet the cut-off marks for the interview – Writ petitions under Article 32 for quashing of results of main examination and re-evaluation by expert committee – No marked difference in the strictness of evaluation undergone by candidates who qualified for the interview – Absent any significant variation, the process of marking not suspect – Answer sheets duly perused by the Court – Marking of the essay does not suffer from an infirmity that would cast doubt on the overall assessment of the English Essay answer sheets – Petitions dismissed: Held: 1. Petitioners qualified for the main examination for the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 – Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules 2010 (RJS Rules) stipulates the scheme of the selection process – Main examination divided into four parts: (i) Law Paper – I (Civil); (ii) Law Paper – II (Criminal); (iii) Language Paper – I (Hindi Essay); and (iv) Language Paper – II (English Essay) – Language papers to be marked out of fifty each – Three questions were required to be answered in the English Essay – For all candidates, the first question was assessed by a District Judge * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2241 Sonal Gupta & Ors. v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr. level officer – The second and the third questions respectively assessed by distinct sets of English Professors working in a Government College to ensure fairness of the process – Minimum aggregate of 40% (35% for SC/ST candidates) for candidates to be eligible for the interview – No minimum marks for language paper – Petitioners aggrieved by fatally low marks in the English Essay that ranged between zero and fifteen out of fifty – Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 for quashing of results of main examination and for re-evaluation of answer papers by an expert committee – Petitions dismissed [Paras 3-5] 2. Note placed on record indicated 95.76% of the candidates secured between zero and fifteen marks – Tabulated statement filed by High Court of Rajasthan indicating marks secured in the Law Paper-I (Civil) and Law Paper-II (Criminal) by those candidates who secured between zero and fifteen marks in the English Essay and who did not qualify for the interview stage – Petitioners have not demonstrated any marked difference in the strictness of evaluation undergone by candidates who have qualified for the interview – Absent any significant variation, the process of marking itself is not suspect. [Paras 8-12] 3. Answer sheets perused by Court – No substance in the allegations that there was deliberate low marking in the English Essay paper – No statistical discrepancy that would warrant intervention – Marking of the essay does not suffer from an infirmity that would cast doubt on the overall assessment of the English Essay answer sheets – Petitions dismissed – Liberty given to candidates having individual grievances, except for issue concluded by this order, to move the High Court under Article 226. [Paras 13-15] Case Law Cited Sanjay Singh v. UP Public Services Commission [2007] 1 SCR 235 : [2007] 3 SCC 720; Pranav Verma v. High Court of P&H [2019] 15 SCR 43 : [2020] 15 SCC 377; Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC [2013] 12 SCC 489; Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta [2015] 2 SCR 480 : [2015] 11 SCC 395; CPIL v. High Court of Delhi [2017] 11 SCC 456 – relied on. List of Acts Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010. 2242 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports List of Keywords Examination process; Marking; Arbitrary variation; Wide variation; Likelihood of discrepancy; Uniform evaluation process; Interference in examination process. Case Arising From CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 708 of 2024 (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India) With W.P.(C) Nos. 706 and 711 of 2024, Diary Nos. 48
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.