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

The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dismissed a batch of writ petitions questioning the correctness and validity of the merit list prepared after Preliminary Examination in the matter of selection to the post of Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre. 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...

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

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags