Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015 – Revaluation of answer-sheet and moderation of marks – Petitioners sought re-valuation of the answer-sheet of criminal law paper of the main examination and further sought moderation of marks obtained by the candidates in the examination of 2015 – Held: Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Singh has laid down moderation to be appropriate where there are multiple examiners of the same subject – Where number of candidates are limited and only one examiner evaluates, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in valuation – In instant case, it is not disputed that only one examiner had evaluated the same part of one subject, therefore, it was not necessary to undertake the process of moderation – Insofar revaluation of answer scripts are concerned, it is a settled proposition of law that in the absence of provision for re-evaluation, it cannot be ordered – Accordingly, for the examination in question, in the absence of provision for revaluation when the examination was held, it could not be resorted to – Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 – Constitution of India – Art.32.
Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015 – Minimum marks for viva voice – Reasonability of – One of the petitioners was awarded 37% marks; whereas the required minimum was 45% in viva voce – Total 64 candidates were called for interview and 63 were selected – Only the said petitioner was declared failed in the viva voce examination – Petitioner contended that the provision prescribing minimum marks for viva voce of judicial services is unreasonable – Held: In instant case, out of 64 candidates, only one has failed in the interview – That, in fact, does not show the prejudice but is rather indicative of the fact that performance of the petitioner was such that in spite of the Selection Committee being most liberal, it did not find it appropriate to award even the minimum passing marks to the said candidate – The awarding of marks by Committee could not be said to be inappropriate – Furthermore, in rules, the minimum cut off is prescribed – That could not have been relaxed and moreover, relaxation is a matter of policy and considering the overall circumstances, importance of interview, the decision not to relax cannot be said to be unreasonable.
Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015 – Enhancement of marks by rounding off – Applicable or not – As per advertisement, the candidates were required to obtain 50% marks in aggregate and 40% in each subject in the main examination to be eligible to be called for interview – One of the petitioners had obtained 49.9% marks and pleaded that it be rounded off to 50% and called for an interview – Held: When a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria without relaxation – It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to make up the minimum aggregate – Thus, the principle of rounding off method not to be applied in view of requirement to obtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for interview in the instant case.
Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015 – Plea for reduction of minimum cut-off marks – As per advertisement, the candidates were required to obtain 50% marks in aggregate and 40% in each subject in the main examination to be eligible to be called for interview – One of the petitioners pleaded to reduce the minimum cut off marks of individual subjects from 40% to 33% as she had failed only in one subject – Held: There is 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 ground to order relaxation or to doubt the correctness of the evaluation process – No ground for interference.
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: Whether moderation is required to be ordered.
1.1 Moderation is an appropriate method to bring about uniformity in evaluation. When several examiners manually evaluate answer-scripts of respective/conventional type question papers in regard to the same subject, moderation is adopted as a method to reduce examiner’s variability. [Para 12] [358-A-B]
1.2 This Court in Sanjay Singh case has laid down moderation to be appropriate where there are multiple examiners of the same subject. It has also been observed that where a number of candidates are limited and only one examiner will evaluate, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in valuation. That is only where several examiners evaluate the same subject. There is difference in average marks and range of marks awarded. There is a ‘hawk-dove’ effect. Some examiners are liberal and they award more marks; some examiners are strict and they give fewer marks, the same may be moderated. There may be variance in degree of strictness and liberality. It is in order to remove the subjectivity or variability, that the provision of moderation is adopted. It is not the situation in the instant case, hence, the decision in Sanjay Singh case rather than buttressing negates the plea of moderation urged on behalf of the petitioners. In the instant case as it is not disputed that only one examiner had evaluated the same part of the one subject. It was not necessary to undertake the process of moderation. [Paras
13 and 14] [361-C-D; 362-E-F]
Revaluation of answer-scripts
2. It is settled proposition of law that in the absence of provision it cannot be ordered. In Mukesh Thakur case it was laid down that in the absence of provision for re-evaluation it cannot be resorted to and the observations which were made in the case of CPIL v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi case, the decision was rendered in 2016 after the examination had already been held, thus the provision for re-evaluation could not have been introduced after the examination had been held. For examination in question in the absence of provision for revaluation when the examination was held, it could not be resorted to. [Para 15] [362-F-G; 364-D-E]
Prescription of minimum pass marks in the viva voce examination
3.1 It is desirable to have the interview and it is necessary to prescribe minimum passing marks for the same when the appointment in the higher judiciary to the post of District Judge is involved. The interview is the best method of judging the performance, overall personality and the actual working knowledge and capacity to perform otherwise the standard of judiciary is likely to be compromised. A written examination only tests academic knowledge, which is some time, gained without possessing overall qualities, practical experience of practice and law. [Para 17] [367-G-H; 368-A]
3.2 It was urged that out of 64 candidates, only one has failed in the interview. That, in fact, does not show the prejudice but is rather indicative of the fact that the performance of the petitioner was such that in spite of the Committee being most liberal, it did not find it appropriate to award even the minimum passing marks to the said candidate. The awarding of marks by the Committee could not be said to be inappropriate. In the instant case in the rules, the minimum cut off is prescribed. That could not have been relaxed and moreover, relaxation is a matter of policy and considering the overall circumstances, importance of interview, the decision not to relax cannot be said to be unreasonable. [Para 18] [368-G-H; 369-A-D]
K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 790 : (2006) 6 SCC 395 – relied on.
Rounding off of the marks
5. When a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to make up the minimum aggregate. Thus the principle of rounding off method could not be applied in view of requirement to obtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for interview in the instant case. [Paras 20 and 22] [371-D; 373-D]
Whether minimum cut off marks in the written examination be relaxed from 40% to 33% and whether the Court 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.
6. The 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. There is no 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. The marks of a candidate who secured highest marks were shown, 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. There are no grounds to make interference. [Para 23] [373-F-G; 374-A-B]
Ajithkumar P. & Ors. v. Remin K.R. & Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 778 – held inapplicable.
Sujasha Mukherji v. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta & Ors. [2015] 2 SCR 480 : (2015) 11 SCC 395; Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. [2010] 7 SCR 189 : (2010) 6 SCC 759; The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore v. G. Hemlatha and Ors. [2012] 8 SCR 157 : (2012) 8 SCC 568; Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr., [2011] 9 SCR 748 : (2011) 8 SCC 108 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.