Rajasthan Civil Judge Exam : Supreme Court Seeks To Know Marks Of Law Papers Of Candidates Who Scored Low In English Essay

The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the pleas challenging the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre, 2024 for alleged arbitrary markings in the English Essay Papers.

On the last hearing, the Court had directed the production of those answer sheets where candidates have been marked below 15 marks for English essays. Today, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Rajasthan High Court, informed that seven trunks have been produced containing the English essay papers.

SG informed that 3534 candidates appeared for the English Essay (Mains) exam out of which 3384 (95.76%) secured marks between zero and fifteen.  SG added that about two hundred candidates, who scored low in English essay, were called for the interview considering their high scores in the Law papers.

The bench noted that the candidates who have not been called for the interviews have been informed of their marks and have been given the mark sheets.

During the hearing, the bench said that it was unlikely that a candidate who scored good marks in Law papers would score zero marks in English, since the Law papers were subjective in nature.

The bench was told that the topics given for the English essay were "Acquittal and honourable acquittal", "Rajasthan festivals", "Chandrayaan mission" etc.

As per the pleas, the common contention is that while the candidates had performed well overall, it is alleged that they have been marked unjustly low in the range 0 to 15 marks out 50 in the English Essay Writing Paper, thus denying them fair eligibility for the final interview stage.

Earlier, when the petitions were mentioned for early listing, CJI had orally remarked the Court would reverse the process if any irregularities were found, regardless of the completion of the interviews.

Background: Recruitment for Civil Judge Cadre, 2024

The Rajasthan High Court (the “Recruiting Authority”), in compliance with the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010, opened 222 vacancies for direct recruitment to the Civil Judge Cadre. The selection process follows a rigorous three-stage process: a Preliminary Examination, a Main Examination, and a Viva Voce (Interview). Out of approximately 3,000 candidates who qualified for the Main Examination held on August 31 and September 1, 2024, only 638 candidates progressed to the interview stage.

Grounds for Petition: Discrepancies in Evaluation and Lack of Transparency

The candidates allege that after the results of the Main Examination were released on October 1, 2024, their scorecards revealed inexplicably low marks—between 0 and 15—specifically in the English Essay paper. This irregular scoring starkly contrasts with their otherwise strong performances, leaving the petitioners unable to reach the interview cut-off. Given the subjective nature of essay writing and the absence of any minimum qualifying mark for language papers, the petitioners emphasize that this opaque evaluation method has produced arbitrary results, impacting their fundamental rights and careers.

Grounds for Petition: Discrepancies in Evaluation and Lack of Transparency

The candidates allege that after the results of the Main Examination were released on October 1, 2024, their scorecards revealed inexplicably low marks—between 0 and 15—specifically in the English Essay paper. This irregular scoring starkly contrasts with their otherwise strong performances, leaving the petitioners unable to reach the interview cut-off. Given the subjective nature of essay writing and the absence of any minimum qualifying mark for language papers, the petitioners emphasize that this opaque evaluation method has produced arbitrary results, impacting their fundamental rights and careers.

The petitioners rely on the Supreme Court judgment in Pranav Verma & Others vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr. (2020). In that case, a similar pattern of arbitrary evaluation in judicial service exams led the Court to appoint an independent committee to review and reassess the answer sheets, which revealed inaccuracies in scoring. Given the analogous circumstances, the petitioners urge the Supreme Court to mandate a similar independent review in this case.

The petitioner requested the Supreme Court intervene to ensure an impartial re-evaluation of their answer sheets by an independent expert committee. They argue that the flawed evaluation process undermines their constitutional right to equal opportunity, enshrined in Article 14, and that a transparent, fair process is essential for upholding judicial integrity in Rajasthan's recruitment for the judiciary.

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr Adv; Ms A Sumathi, Adv; Ms Ila Sheel, AOR; Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR; Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv.; Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, AOR

Case : MS SONAL GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL RAJASHTAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR AND ANOTHER | Diary Number 47205/2024 and connected matters