In light of concerns surrounding the evaluation process used in the Mains Examination for Direct Recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge, the Rajasthan High Court is considering the establishment of an expert committee composed of distinguished jurists and professors to reassess the answer sheets.

The Division Bench, led by Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal, has instructed the Examination Cell of the High Court to establish the aforementioned committee. Concerns were raised regarding the stringent marking criteria, as only 4 out of 85 candidates who participated in the Mains Exam qualified for the interview.

The Division Bench has further specified that the expert committee is empowered to examine the length of the paper and the allotted time for answering the questions. Additionally, the committee is tasked with creating a tabular chart illustrating the marks initially awarded to each answer sheet and the marks assigned after re-evaluation. The court has emphasized that candidate scores should be anonymized before being provided to the committee for assessment.

The bench convened in Jaipur was adjudicating on a challenge lodged by practicing advocates regarding the selection process and evaluation methods employed in the Higher Judiciary Exam. The High Court intends to assess the variance in marks obtained through the aforementioned process before deliberating on the possibility of awarding bonus marks, modifying results, or initiating a comprehensive re-evaluation of all answer sheets.

The court has emphasized that neither the marks obtained through re-evaluation nor the details of the tabular chart will be disclosed to any of the candidates involved. Furthermore, the court has suggested the future evaluation of answer sheets by expert jurists/professors to prevent controversies like the present one. Among the primary concerns raised by the petitioners was the perceived conflict of interest, as it was predominantly the promotee officers who assessed the papers of candidates in the Limited Competitive Exam. The argument posited was that when direct recruits aren't appointed through direct recruitment, these positions are temporarily filled by the same promotee officers, creating an inherent conflict of interest.

Citing precedents like Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: (2018) 2 SCC 357 and High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirath Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors.: (2019) 16 SCC 663, it was deduced that the High Court may authorize re-evaluation solely in rare and extraordinary circumstances.

As per a High Court order dated 18.04.2023, Retired Justice Govind Mathur was tasked with compiling a report to assess the proper allocation of marks. The court enlisted Justice Mathur's assistance after identifying instances of overwriting and reduction in marks, even in cases where petitioner candidates had provided suitable answers in their response papers.

Upon reviewing the report submitted by Justice Mathur, the court deemed it non-exhaustive and inconclusive. The division bench noted that the report lacked specific findings regarding the answer sheets of Roll Nos. 510735 & 510777, despite the court's directive for Justice Mathur to examine them explicitly. Additionally, the report failed to clearly indicate whether the marks awarded by the evaluators were reasonable or not.

In addition to the  lack of conclusiveness in Justice Mathur's report, the court also considered the circumstance that numerous aggrieved candidates had successfully passed the Mains Exam administered by examination cells in other states. Furthermore, the court deliberated on the potential consequences of indefinitely leaving vacancies, as notified, unfilled.

Case Title: Nisha Gaur & Ors. v. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr & Connected Matters

Case No: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18479/2022