Rajsathan High Court Dismisses Challenge To Civil Judge Exam Preliminary Merit List

Essentially, the challenge has been regarding correctness and validity of deletion of four questions, rejection of representation for deleting more questions on various grounds and some other common grounds to the process of selection.

Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petitions and upholding the Expert Committee's recommendations, ordered,

"Having dealt with all the issues as raised in these petitions and relying upon dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions cited hereinabove which restrict the scope of judicial review and interference is warranted only in exceptional cases of the nature as stated and restated in various judicial pronouncements, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the body of experts as it was acted upon by the respondents. We have carefully examined the original records which contained deliberations of subject experts and discussions, as also the conclusion arrived at by the experts of the subjects in the Expert Committee.".

Placing reliance on Subhash Chandra Verma v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 325], the court observed that it is incorrect to say that the question will have more than one correct answer. The court opined that even if the answer could be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more correct out of the alternative answers. In the present case, no case of there being more than one option being the correct answer is found, added the court.

While refusing the prayer to grant bonus marks, the court opined that present is not a case where the petitioners have succeeded in demonstrating in any of the cases that there was more than one correct answer out of multiple choice answers to any particular disputed question. In this regard, reliance was placed by the court in Anjali Goswami and Others Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, 2019, wherein direction was issued to award one mark to the candidate, who had opted for the other option as the correct answer, in a question having two correct answers.

In addition to this, the court noted that no candidate can claim an award of marks on the ground that he had given the correct answer to a wrong question. Where the question, being wrong and defective, has been deleted, unless it is found that the deletion itself was not permissible in law, a candidate cannot claim marks against such deleted question on the ground that he had correctly answered the question, added the court.

It was observed by the court that the petitioners have virtually submitted their case in argumentative form in order to satisfy that there could be more than one possible correct answer. In this regard, the court remarked that petitioners seek to satisfy the court by a long drawn inferential process of reasoning and rationalisation, which cannot be categorized as demonstrably or palpably wrong.

Further, the court ruled,

"Once the reasons, which have been assigned by the experts, are plausible and cannot be said to be based on extraneous considerations or clearly irrational, arbitrary or demonstrably and palpably incorrect, there is no scope of judicial review. An interference with the decision, in the absence of there being any defect in the decision making process, would amount to substituting the view as propounded and projected by the petitioners in place of the view which has been taken by the body of experts."

Moreover, the court observed that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner, much less any discrimination. The court opined that the petitioner's contention is on a fallacious premise that if he had given correct answers against deleted questions, he would have obtained 72 marks. This cannot be countenanced because as many as four questions itself have been found to be defective for one or the other reason and, therefore, deleted, added the court.

On the petitioner's objection that he was not permitted to use a normal watch, even though under the instructions there was prohibition to bring smart watch in the examination hall and which therefore affected his time management, the court opined,

"Firstly, this is in the realm of disputed question of fact and secondly, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was discriminated and that he was not allowed to use normal watch and all other candidates or many of them were given this benefit. Not only the petitioner, but all the candidates were subjected to the same situation in the examination hall where no one was permitted to carry watch. The argument that at least a wall clock ought to have been provided by itself, without anything more, could not be made basis to declare entire examination vitiated. These arguments are arguments in despair as the petitioner could not succeed in the examination."

The court stated that it is although true that the process of revising the answer keys and deletion of four questions may have effect on the ratio of cases belonging to Law subjects to that of Language subjects, but it has to be seen that all the examinees were tested on their merit only with reference to 96 questions. The court added that this procedure and testing of merit of the candidates at the stage of Preliminary Examination with reference to 96 questions, does not, in any manner, render the process of selection vitiated.

Additionally, the court noted that under Clause B of Schedule IV referable to Rule 20 of the Rules of 2010, it was prescribed that 70% weightage shall be given to the subjects prescribed in syllabus for Law Paper-I and Law Paper-II and 30% weightage shall be given to test proficiency in Hindi and English language, but unavoidable circumstances leading to deletion of defective questions were required to be taken care of to ensure just and fair process of selection. In this regard, the court added,

"If in that process, there is slight variation, no fault could be found in the process of selection only on that ground. Once some of the questions were found to be defective, the only course open for the respondents was to delete the questions, rather than subjecting the candidates to examination to test their merit by putting defective questions to them. Moreover, Instruction No. 22, Clause (1) of the advertisement, which prescribed process of inviting objections and likelihood of revision of model answer keys, clearly indicated that such a situation could arise. No one challenged the same."

The court observed that it is a well settled legal position that where the process of selection is not challenged, unsuccessful candidates cannot be permitted to question the process of selection, if they have remained unsuccessful.

Moreover, the court pointed out that the petitioners took somersault raising disputes with regard to the correctness of the procedure which they never objected to while participating in the process of selection. Therefore, the court ruled that the petitioners are barred from raising such an objection that the process of inviting objections and revising model answer keys was illegal or opposed to law. Furthermore, such a process can neither be said to be in violation of the Rules of 2010, much less unfair or arbitrary, added the court.

It was stated that it is true that the consideration of objections with regard to model answer keys by constitution of the Committee of Experts is not stated in the Rules of 2010, however, the same was clearly stated as one of the instructions in Clause 22(1) of the advertisement. The court observed that none of the petitioners ever objected to such a procedure, but they all participated in the process of selection.

Further, the court opined that it is a settled legal position that though re-evaluation in the absence of there being any rule/scheme governing the examination is not permissible in law except in exceptional cases where the answers are found to be demonstrably wrong, the injustice caused to the candidates has to be undone.

Dismissal of the Challenge by the Principal Bench

On 28.01.2022, the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur had dismissed a plea challenging the final results of the Civil Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services (Preliminary Examination).

The plea was filed by one Ashwini Chaturvedi. She had challenged the administration's decision on the correct choice in relation to question No.80 and its decision to delete question No.81, through which the petitioner missed out clearing the RJS preliminary examination's cut-off only by 1 mark.

Rajasthan Judicial Services: High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Answer Key Of 2021 Prelims Exam

A division bench of Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, observed,

"We do not think that the petitioner has made out any case for interference. As is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court, interference by the High Court in specialized fields where recruitment is being made through specialized agencies, should be the minimum."

The advocates appearing for the petitioners include Anil Kumar Sharma, Vivek Joshi with Preeti Sharma, Arvind Kumar Arora with Komal Kumari Giri, Mukesh Kumar Meena, Girraj P. Sharma, Sandeep Singh Shekhawat with Priya Pareek, Mahendra Singh Rathore, Nidhi Khandelwal with Nikhil Kumar Jain, Ram Pratap Saini, Aamir Khan, Giriraj Rajoriya, Aditya Jain with Gyamlani Neha, Bhavya Golecha, Vinodi Lal Mathur, Mohit Balwada with Gayatri, Sr. Adv. R.K. Mathur assisted by Ved Prakash Sogarwal, Manoj Kumar Avasthi, Prem Chand Dewanda with Hemraj Rodiya, Bajrang Lal Choudhary, Satya Pal Poshwal, Vinod Choudhary, Chandra Kant Chauhan, Saurabh Jain with Shivali Katara, Rajesh Kumar with Vishesh Sharma. Mr. Ravi Gupta-petitioner appeared in person before the court.

The advocates appearing for the respondents include Sr. Adv. A.K. Sharma assisted by Vishnu Kant Sharma.

Also Read: [Rajasthan Judicial Services] High Court Issues Notices In Plea Challenging 2021 Prelims Answer Key & For Non-Reduction Of Cut-Off Marks For ST Widow Category

Also Read: [Rajasthan Judicial Service] High Court Issues Notice In Another Plea Challenging 2021 Prelims Answer Key

Case Title: Kavita Bhargava v. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 123