Pranav Verma & Others vs The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr.

Partly allowing the Writ Petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, Justice Sikri critically examined the selection process as well as the evaluation method and it is explicit from his report that the procedure of evaluation was ‘uniform’. Evaluation done by multiple evaluators i.e. one Evaluator examining and marking one question in all the mark– sheets, ensures uniformity and prevents chance grading. Every candidate’s answers are marked on same parameters by the same examiner. There can possibly be no other better method to ensure uniformity in evaluation. The petitioners have stated that as per the information received via RTI no model ‘answer key’ was present. It gives more credance to the afore–stated method of evaluation as no model ‘answer key’ ought to be devised for the Main Exam, the purpose whereof is not to just assess the knowledge of candidates but also to evaluate their analytical ability. In the instant case, there was no Examiner Variability, therefore, Justice Sikri very aptly remarked that, “this was well intended move to attain uniformity in evaluation”. This method ensures equal level play field for all candidates. The only setback was lack of holistic view and lack of realistic expectations in the examiner’s mind, for which there are adequate remedies. [Para 14][60-G-H; 61-A-C]

1.2 The marking criteria and evaluation method was strict but it was so for everyone. This was may be for the reason that one Evaluator checked one answer in each script and in this manner the entire lot of scripts were marked. The Evaluators failed to keep a pragmatic view that source of recruitment was likely to be the same in a fresh attempt also and that candidates had only 8.5 minutes to answer each question and time constraint did not allow them to give their best of performance. Even those candidates who covered all aspects briefly were not awarded proper marks. It was not a case where some candidates were subjected to strict marking and others had an advantage of lenient marking, so as to draw an inference that the evaluation method was discriminatory or arbitrary. [Para 15][61-D-E]

1.3 It has been found as a matter of fact that the officials of the High Court ensured adequate security measures such as keeping the answer scripts in iron boxes under round–the–clock security and CCTV cameras. Hence, it is just and fair to hold that no discriminatory or malafide practice was undertaken while conducting the exam or its following processes. [Para 16][61-FG]

2.1 Considering that the marking was strict but not discriminatory, the remedy of moderation of marks, in order to remove the variation caused by multiple examiners and dearth of time, is the only effective, equitable and efficasious solution. The petitioners have stated and rightly so that as per the RTI, there are no rules governing grace marks. They have suggested that any appropriate scientific technique like scaling, or moderation can be adopted in this case, as is done by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for administrative appointments and UP Public Service Commission (UPPSC) for judicial recruitments. [Para 17][61-H; 62-A-B]

2.2 This Court in Sanjay Singh’s case considered the suitability of scaling method in depth but declined to approve the same for Judicial Examinations. It considered the viability of scaling and moderation for Judicial Services Examinations and held that use of Scaling is appropriate only when there is differentiation amongst subjects opted by candidates. This does not apply in the cases where subjects are uniform. Further, moderation is a more viable technique so as to exclude the effect of examiner variability. In the instant case, there was no examiner variability but marking was strict, thus, the option of moderation deserves to be considered and applied. [Para 18, 19][62-B; 63D, F] Sanjay Singh & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission (2007) 3 SCC 720 : [2007] 1 SCR 235 – referred to.

2.3 Moderation can be by the addition of marks (in case of strict marking) and/or deduction of marks (in case of lenient marking). In the instant case that the strict marking has caused severe prejudice to the candidates and only 0.702% of them could qualify as against 107 vacancies. The candidates have been suffering for last five years. It is, therefore, inevitable to do complete justice and invoke the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and consequently award grace marks to the candidates so that more candidates, who are otherwise no less meritorious, get an opportunity to appear for the viva–voce. The question is how many grace marks should be awarded and what should be the criteria followed. [Para 20, 21][63-G; 64-D-E] Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of Delhi High Court (2018) 14 SCC 129 : [2018] 10 SCR 348 – distinguished.

2.4 Justice Sikri in his concise but scholarly authored report has suggested three alternatives for awarding of grace marks; First Alternative is awarding 20 marks in Civil Law–I; Second Alternative is awarding 20 marks in Civil Law–I and 10 marks in Civil Law–II; and Third Alternative is awarding 35 marks in aggregate. After going through the report of Justice Sikri, in this regards, it is deemed appropriate to adopt Alternative II of the Report, since the marking in Civil Law–I and Civil Law–II both was strict. Marking of Civil Law–II was only marginally strict. Equity can thus be well balanced by awarding 10 marks to every candidate in Civil Law–II paper and 20 marks in Civil Law–I. The prayer of the petitioners for addition of 50 grace marks is not found feasible, for the moderation should also look reasonable. The petitioners have failed to assign any well founded reason for seeking moderation of 50 grace marks, only on the apprehension that even the candidates who secured good marks in written examinations were given very low marks in viva–voce and the Committee has been awarding a meagre 8 to 18 marks, and hence they too will not be able to meet the eligibility criteria of minimum 50% marks. It is not compulsory for the High Court to fill all vacant posts, even if suitable candidates are not available. [Para 22][64-F-H; 65-A]

2.5 The need of viva–voce is an integral part of selection process for certain posts. The viva–voce and Written Examination (Main Exam), thus, both have their own importance in a selection process and it is for the interviewing panel to decide how many marks be awarded to a candidate keeping in view his/her performance in interview. Secondly, the composition of Selection Committee is the sole prerogative of Chief Justice of the High Court and this Court need not venture into the issue which pertains to exercise of administrative power(s) of the Chief Justice. [Para 23][65-C, E-F]

3. The alternative prayer of the petitioners for re–evaluation by an Independent Expert Committee is not worth acceptance. Firstly, for the reason that these 107 posts are already lying vacant for a considerable long period and the re–evaluation would further delay it. Secondly, Justice Sikri has thoroughly examined the fact situation before recommending the award of grace marks. Thirdly, there is no provision for re–evaluation in the Recruitment Rules and any such direction would run counter to the mandate of this Court in H.P. Public Service v. Mukesh Thakur laying down that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Courts should not generally direct re–evaluation. [Para 24][65-G-H; 66-A]

H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759 : [2010] 7 SCR 189 – relied on.

4. As regards the petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva–voce, such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism. The broad principles to be laid down in this regard must be viewed keeping in view the selections for various categories of posts by different Selecting Authorities, for such a self–evolved criteria cannot be restrocted to Judicial Services only. If the Members of the Interviewing Boards are already aware of the marks of a candidate secured in the Written Examination, they can individually or jointly tilt the final result in favour or against such candidate. The suggested recourse, thus, is likely to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of a candidate in viva–voce. As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post. Any measure which fosters bias in the minds of the interviewers, therefore, must be done away with. [Para 27][66G; 67-A-C]

Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 : [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657 – relied on.

5. The respondents are directed to award 20 grace marks in Civil Law–I paper and 10 grace marks in Civil Law–II paper to all the candidates of 2019 Examination and prepare fresh results of the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) within two weeks and complete the selection process within four weeks thereafter. The entire selection process shall be completed in all respects before 15th February, 2020. The left out vacant posts along with vacancies which have occurred meanwhile and those anticipated within next six months, be advertised as early as possible and be filled in accordance with the timeline prescribed by this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan case. [Para 28][67-D-F] Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008) 17 SCC 703 – relied on.

CPIL v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi (2017) 11 SCC 456; Prashant Ramesh Chakrawar v. UPSC & Ors (2013) 12 SCC 489; Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta (2015) 11 SCC 395 : [2015] 2 SCR 480; Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC

159 : [1982] 1 SCR 320; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372; Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs Registrar–General High Court of Delhi (2017) 11 SCC 456 – referred to.