Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard writ petitions filed by over 90 candidates challenging the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination – 2017. The examination was conducted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. After a preliminary examination was scrapped due to a paper leak, a re-notified examination was held. The Main Examination consisted of five papers: Civil Law-I, Civil Law-II, Criminal Law, English, and Hindi. Candidates needed a minimum of 33% in each paper and 50% aggregate (45% for reserved categories) to qualify for viva voce. Only 9 out of 1195 candidates qualified, leading to allegations of arbitrary evaluation. The Supreme Court appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice A.K. Sikri to examine the answer scripts. Justice Sikri's report found that the evaluation of Civil Law-I was excessively strict, with questions being too lengthy and evaluators expecting detailed answers without considering time constraints. He recommended moderation by awarding 20 grace marks (10%) in Civil Law-I (Alternative I) or other alternatives to increase the number of qualified candidates. The petitioners argued for re-evaluation by an independent authority or awarding 50 grace marks. The Court accepted Justice Sikri's report and directed the High Court to implement Alternative I, allowing 28 additional candidates to qualify for viva voce. The Court held that the evaluation method was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and moderation was necessary to ensure fairness. The petitions were disposed of with directions to complete the selection process expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Arbitrariness in Evaluation - Strict marking in Civil Law-I paper without considering time constraints held to be arbitrary - Court accepted report of former Supreme Court Judge recommending moderation of marks to remedy the situation (Paras 9-11). B) Service Law - Judicial Service Examination - Moderation of Marks - Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 - Court directed implementation of Alternative I (20 grace marks in Civil Law-I) to allow more candidates to qualify for viva voce - Held that moderation is permissible to correct systemic errors in evaluation (Paras 9.5, 11). C) Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Writ Jurisdiction - Supreme Court can intervene in selection process if it is found to be arbitrary or unfair - Court exercised its power under Article 32 to ensure fairness in judicial recruitment (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the evaluation method adopted in the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination – 2017 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether the court should order re-evaluation or moderation of marks.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court accepted the report of Justice A.K. Sikri and directed the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to implement Alternative I, i.e., award 20 grace marks (10%) to all candidates in Civil Law-I paper. This will allow 28 additional candidates (15 General + 13 Reserved) to qualify for viva voce, making a total of 37 candidates. The selection process shall be completed expeditiously.
Law Points
- Moderation of marks
- Strict evaluation
- Judicial service examination
- Article 14
- Article 32
- Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules
- 1951
