Can aspiring judicial officers seek re-evaluation of answer scripts? Punjab and Haryana High Court says no

Observation: ‘No re-evaluation permitted’

• The provisions related to the examination of ADJ clarify that the re-evaluation of the answer sheets was not allowed, and only the rechecking of the answer sheets was allowed to ascertain that there is no totalling error.
• None of the petitioners applied for the permissible rechecking of their answer sheets. 
• The second petitioner only made representations for re-evaluation in December 2024, which were, however, rejected by the recruitment committee (superior judicial service).
• It was also noted that this representation was not as per the prescribed format for rechecking, which was permissible under the relevant rules. 
• The petitioners have not challenged the particular clause of the relevant rules which bar any re-evaluation of the answer sheets. 

• It is also pointed out that the petitioners could not have even challenged once they had actually participated in the selection process. 
• The petitioners have no right to claim re-evaluation, considering the advertisement itself, based on which the petitioners actually participated in the selection process.
• Various previous rulings have pointed out that, in a selection process, until and unless the relevant rules specifically permit, the re-evaluation of answer sheets cannot be undertaken.
• The examination provided for subjective-type answers in the main written examination, and the responses given by the different candidates differ from person to person.
• Every candidate has their own mindset, and the qualitative analysis of a particular question is to be answered in the way he thinks is more appropriate.
• The simple fact of the alleged cuttings in the marks, by itself, would not be a sufficient ground for ordering the re-evaluation, especially when the relevant rules do not permit re-evaluation. 
• The alleged cuttings of marks are nothing but the rectifications made by the evaluators during the evaluation process itself to avoid any error or omission in awarding marks to any particular part of a question.
• There was no post evaluation tampering for the alleged cutting of the marks of the petitioners. 

 Petitioners’ plea: ‘Constitution can undo injustice’

• The advocates of the petitioners highlighted that the powers of the Constitution are wide enough to undo the injustice.
• They further mentioned that the re-evaluation of the answer-sheets of the petitioners is sought to be done to undo the injustice done to the petitioners due to undesired cuttings in the award of marks in their respective answer-sheets. 
• The counsel representing the petitioner submitted that there were “rampant” cuttings in the awarded marks in the answer-sheets of the petitioners, which had been done without any justifiable reason in an arbitrary manner. 
• They contend that such cuttings certainly lead to the inference that the examiners were not clear in their minds as to the correctness of the answers.
• They claimed that this led to rampant cuttings in the marks awarded to various questions attempted by the petitioners. 

• They argued that if there had been no such unwanted cuttings, the petitioners would have been successful candidates.
• The counsel appearing for the second petitioner, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued that he was declared unsuccessful for the post of additional district judge in Punjab and Haryana on account of having fallen short by merely 14 and 09 marks, respectively.
• He emphasised that his client had even scored second highest marks in the written examination and had also done well in viva voce.
• He also mentioned that his client eventually topped the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination 2023 and had such rampant cuttings not there in the marks awarded, he would have been successful in the examination conducted in Punjab and Haryana as well. 

High court’s plea: ‘Marks cutting for rectification’

• The counsel appearing for the high court, Munisha Gandhi, submits that the petitions lack merit and deserve dismissal. 
• She submitted that the re-evaluation is not allowed as it is specifically and clearly mentioned in the notifications themselves, and mentioned that only limited rechecking is allowed. 
• Gandhi also contended that the clause in the respective notifications which bars the re-evaluation of the answer sheets was never challenged by the petitioners. 
• Since re-evaluation is not permissible under the relevant rules, the petitioners have no case in their favour to seek judicial review
• It was also mentioned that, as long as the second petitioner is concerned, he, after being declared successful in the written examinations of the Punjab and Harayan Higher Judicial Service, had even appeared in the viva voce without raising any grievance or protest regarding the issue of alleged cuttings. 
• She contended that the alleged cuttings in the award of marks in the answer sheet are actually the corrections and rectifications made by the evaluators during the evaluation process, which were duly signed by them. 
• She further emphasised that there is no cutting or overwriting on the title sheet of the answer sheet of the petitioners, and such corrections are done with a view to ensure error free evaluation.
• Such corrections during the evaluation process did not amount to any tampering as alleged by the petitioners, particularly when the evaluation was conducted by way of ‘table marking’, thus maintaining absolute uniformity. 
• It was further pointed out that the examination was conducted fairly and impartially, the evaluation was carried out under the supervision of a coordinator who is a senior academician, using a table marking, leaving no scope for any error.

‘Judicial services exam, re-evaluation claim’

• The first petitioner had applied for the post of additional district judge in Haryana, while the second petitioner had applied for the post of additional district judge in Punjab as well as Haryana through the notification issued in November 2023.
• The examination comprised two stages, i.e. written test as well as a viva voce. The syllabus and format were duly published in the said notification.
• The result of the written examination of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination 2024 was announced, in which the first petitioner was declared to be unsuccessful in the written examination.
• On the other hand, the other petitioner, who had applied for the Haryana as well as the Punjab Superior Judicial Service, was declared successful in the written examinations and then appeared in the viva voce. 
• The final results of the examinations were declared, in which the other petitioner was found unsuccessful, falling short of 9 and 14 marks respectively in the examination for the respective States of Haryana and Punjab. 
• He sought information under the right to information (RTI) and found there were cuttings of marks in various papers.
• He further claimed that he had successfully topped the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination 2023 but was declared unsuccessful in the Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Service examination 2024, despite having scored the second-highest marks in the written examination for unknown reasons, to deny him the post.