AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner herein is a Advocate practicing at Bikaner. He appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the respondent- Rajasthan High Court for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge Cadre, 2018 under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules 2010. Result of the examination was declared on 25.08.2019, wherein the petitioner was declared 'failed' in the Language Paper.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition with a prayer to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheet of his Language Paper in the examination referred to Supra, claiming that the evaluation of the answer sheet was not undertaken in a proper, lawful manner.
Shri Sanjeet Purohit, representing the petitioner placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of High Court of Tripura through Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 3070 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the direction given by the Tripura High Court for re- evaluation of the answer sheets of the respondents. Shri Sanjeet Purohit, contended that the petitioner is a post-graduate in English Language and he secured extremely good marks in the law papers and thus it cannot be accepted that he would have performed so badly in the Language Paper so that he would receive barely 12 marks therein, He bases his contention on the ratio of the judgment in the case of High Court of Tripura (Supra) and urges that this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction is not powerless from directing re-evaluation of the answer sheet of a candidate in a suitable case. On these submissions, he seeks acceptance of the writ petition craving a direction to the respondent to have re-evaluated the answer sheet of the petitioner for the Language Paper.
We have thoroughly considered the submissions advanced by Shri Sanjeet Purohit and have gone through the material available on record. We have carefully perused the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of High Court of Tripura through Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors. (Supra).
Suffice it to say that it is an admitted position that "The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010" under which, the examination in question was conducted, do not allow for re-evaluation of the answer sheet of a candidate under any condition whatsoever.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while examining the case of High Court of Tripura through Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors.(Supra), went through the question paper and the answer sheet of the subject examination and found some serious ambiguities therein and taking note of the same, the review petition filed by the Tripura High Court was rejected.
However, we are of the firm view that in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to in what precise manner, the evaluation of his answer sheet for the Language Paper was incorrect or arbitrary.
The only contention of learned counsel Shri Sanjeet Purohit for assailing the re-evaluation was that as the petitioner secured very good marks in the law papers, it is to be expected in the natural course of events that the petitioner would have done well and secured good marks in the Language Paper as well. This is the sole ground on which the petitioner has staked a claim for re-evaluation. Nonetheless, we are least convinced by the said submission of Shri Purohit because the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a number of judgments some of which are referred to hereinbelow:
1) Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. Reported in 2004 (6) SCC 714;
2) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. 2010 (6) SCC 759;
3) Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination & Ors. Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 523, has categorically laid down that where the rules of selection do not provide for re-evaluation, the Courts should not generally direct re- evaluation while exercising writ jurisdiction.
A controversy almost identical to the one presented before us was examined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Taniya Malik Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi reported in AIR 2018 SC 1245 wherein, it was held in unequivocal terms that in a recruitment based on written examination, re-evaluation cannot be permitted in absence of specific provision in the selection rules.
Material observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Now we take up the second submission with respect to revaluation of answer scripts. It is settled proposition of law that in the absence of provision it cannot be ordered. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (AIR 2010 SC 2621), this Court has considered various decisions and observed: "24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth (AIR 1984 SC 1543) wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re- evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 and 42, paras 14 and 16) (at p. 1549-1550 and 1551 of AIR) :
"14. ...It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act....
The contention advanced by Shri Purohit, that it should be presumed in the natural course of events that as the petitioner secured good marks in the Law paper, he would have fared well in the Language paper as well also does not hold water in view of the following observations made in the above Judgement:
Coming to question whether minimum cut off marks in the written examination be relaxed from 40% to 33% and whether we should interfere on the ground that as a person who has obtained the highest marks, could not clear one of the papers by narrow margin of one mark. It was also urged that the person having the highest marks has not been called for interview and as he could not clear the minimum percentage in one of the written paper and persons having lesser marks in aggregate have been called for interview. In our opinion minimum passing marks in each of the paper could have been prescribed and that is absolutely necessary so as to adjudge the academic knowledge in various subjects. Merely by scoring highest marks in general knowledge and language paper is not going to help. Minimum knowledge in other subjects, civil and criminal law was also requisite and that is true for vice versa too, and that is why minimum passing marks had been prescribed and fixation of 40% was quite reasonable and proper and it would be not proper for this Court to interfere in the same. We find no fault in prescribing the minimum passing marks for written papers. It may happen in any examination that a person who is having better aggregate may not fair well in one of the papers and may be declared 'failed'. That cannot be a ground to order relaxation or to doubt the correctness of the evaluation process. When we were shown the marks of a candidate who secured highest marks, it became apparent that the performance of the candidate in paper general knowledge and language was far better as compared to the performance in civil and criminal papers. Thus when a single examiner, has done valuation, same yardstick has been applied to all the candidates. We find no ground to interfere on the various grounds urged by the petitioners.
Having considered the submissions advanced by Shri Purohit on the anvil of the above mentioned citations, we are of the firm view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petition.
Hence, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed similarly as being devoid of any merit. Thus, the Stay Petition is also rejected.
No order as to cost.