Rajasthan HJS Evaluation Process Challenged, High Court Orders Expert Committee To Re-Evaluate Copies And Submit Report
In response to a controversy on the process of evaluation adopted in the Mains Examination for Direct Recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge, Rajasthan High Court has proposed the constitution of an expert committee comprising eminent jurists/professors for re-evaluation of the answer sheets. The Division Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal deemed it fit to direct...
In response to a controversy on the process of evaluation adopted in the Mains Examination for Direct Recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge, Rajasthan High Court has proposed the constitution of an expert committee comprising eminent jurists/professors for re-evaluation of the answer sheets.
The Division Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal deemed it fit to direct the Examination Cell of the High Court for the constitution of the said committee. Out of 85 candidates who appeared in the Mains Exam, only 4 candidates had qualified for the interview, allegedly a result of unnecessarily strict marking criteria.
“…The Expert Committee would pick up 20 copies of each paper randomly and shall examine and evaluate the same and while evaluating the answer-sheets, the Expert Committee will be free to take into consideration the length of the paper and the time provided for answering the questions…”, the court noted in the order with regards to the four papers that the candidates should qualify in the Limited Competitive Exam.
The Division Bench has also clarified that the expert committee can look into the length of the paper and the time given for answering the questions. The committee is required to prepare a tabular chart that depicts the marks already awarded to each copy and the marks awarded after re-evaluation. The court has also made it clear that the numbers obtained by the candidates should be masked before giving it to the committee.
The bench sitting at Jaipur was hearing a challenge preferred by practising advocates against the selection process and evaluation method adopted in the Higher Judiciary Exam.
The High Court will compare the difference in marks obtained through the process mentioned above before determining whether bonus marks should be granted, whether results must be modified or whether all the answer sheets should be re-evaluated.
“It is made clear that exercise made in pursuance of this order would not have any bearing on the result of 4 candidates, who have already been recruited to the District Judge Cadre… We make it clear that secrecy would be maintained with regard to the copies picked up for re-valuation by the Expert Committee…”, the court added.
The court has also underscored that the marks obtained in re-evaluation or the details of tabular chart prepared in the end will not be divulged to any of the candidates. The court has also recommended the evaluation of answer sheets by expert jurists/professors in future exams to avoid controversies such as the current one.
One of the main contentions of the petitioners herein was that there was an inherent conflict of interest when it was mostly the promotee officers who evaluated the papers of candidates appearing in the Limited Competitive Exam. It was reasoned that when direct recruits are not recruited by direct recruitment, these posts are filled on an ad-hoc basis by promotee officers themselves.
Referring to case laws such as Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: (2018) 2 SCC 357 and High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirath Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors.: (2019) 16 SCC 663, it was concluded that the High Court can permit re-evaluation only in rare and exceptional cases.
According to an order of the High Court dated 18.04.2023, Retired Justice Govind Mathur was asked to submit a report on whether marks have been awarded properly or not. The court had sought the assistance of Justice Mathur after finding overwriting in marks as well as reduction, even in cases of appropriate answers given by a petitioner candidate in his/her answer paper.
However, after perusing the report submitted by Justice Mathur, the court termed it as non-exhaustive and inconclusive; the division bench pointed out that the report does not mention any specific findings pertaining to the answer sheets of Roll Nos.510735 & 510777 though the court had asked Justice Mathur to examine both answer sheets specifically. Moreover, the report did not clearly indicate if the marks awarded by the evaluators were reasonable or not.
In addition to the lack of conclusiveness in Justice Mathur's report, before proposing the constitution of the expert committee, the court also took into account the fact that many of the aggrieved candidates have cleared the Mains Exam conducted by the examination cell in other states and the repercussions of vacancies notified lying vacant indefinitely.
Case Title: Nisha Gaur & Ors. v. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr & Connected Matters
Case No: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18479/2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 29