Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by practicing advocates who appeared for the Goa Judicial Service Examination (Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class) conducted pursuant to an advertisement dated 7 June 2022 under the Goa Judicial Service Rules, 2013. The petitioners passed Paper I (Civil) but failed Paper II (Criminal). They obtained copies of their answer sheets under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and being dissatisfied with the marks, sought re-evaluation or re-correction of Paper II. The main grounds were that the evaluation was too strict and that model answer keys were not provided, which prevented them from challenging the evaluation. The court considered whether there is a right to re-evaluation in the absence of specific rules and whether model answer keys are required to be disclosed. The court held that there is no inherent right to re-evaluation unless the rules provide for it, and that model answer keys are not 'information' under the RTI Act as they are not held as records. The court also found no patent error or arbitrariness in the evaluation. The petitions were dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Supply of Model Answer Keys - Section 2(f), 4(1)(b) - The court held that model answer keys are not 'information' under the RTI Act as they are not held by the public authority in the form of a record; they are created by the examiner for evaluation and not maintained as a record. The court also noted that the petitioners did not specifically plead that the answer keys were sought under the RTI Act. (Paras 10-12) B) Judicial Service Examination - Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets - Goa Judicial Service Rules, 2013 - The court held that there is no right to re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any provision in the relevant rules or regulations. The court distinguished cases where re-evaluation was ordered due to patent errors or arbitrary evaluation, but found no such error in the present case. (Paras 13-18) C) Judicial Service Examination - Strict Evaluation - The court held that strict evaluation by itself does not constitute a ground for re-evaluation unless it is shown to be arbitrary or perverse. The court found that the evaluation was done by a competent examiner and there was no material to suggest any error. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate in a judicial service examination has a right to re-evaluation or re-correction of answer sheets in the absence of any provision in the relevant rules, and whether the denial of model answer keys violates the Right to Information Act.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Right to re-evaluation
- Judicial Service Examination
- Model answer key
- Patent error
- Strict evaluation
