Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 982
Judges: S. A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai, J., Surya Kant, J.
Can a flawed evaluation process justify awarding grace marks to candidates? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination – 2017. This case arose from a challenge to the selection process and evaluation method of the Main Examination, where an unusually low number of candidates qualified for the viva voce. The Supreme Court, after considering the report of a former Supreme Court Judge, ordered the award of grace marks to ensure a fairer selection process. The judgment was authored by Justice Surya Kant.
Case Background
The case originated from the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination – 2017, for which the original notification was published on 20 March 2017, to fill 109 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Preliminary Examination held on 16 July 2017, was cancelled due to a question paper leak. Subsequently, 107 posts were re-notified on 27 August 2018. The examination process included a Preliminary Examination, a Main Examination, and a Viva Voce. The Main Examination consisted of five papers: Civil Law – I, Civil Law – II, Criminal Law, English, and Hindi. Candidates needed to secure a minimum of 33% in each paper and an aggregate of 50% (45% for reserved categories) to qualify for the Viva Voce. The results of the Main Exam, declared on 11 April 2019, showed that only 9 candidates qualified for the Viva Voce out of 1195 who appeared, leading to the filing of writ petitions challenging the selection process.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 20 March 2017 | Original Notification for 109 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) published. |
| 16 July 2017 | Preliminary Examination conducted. |
| 13 September 2017 | Preliminary Examination scrapped due to question paper leak. |
| 27 August 2018 | 107 posts re-notified. |
| 22 December 2018 | Preliminary Examination held pursuant to re-notification. |
| 21 January 2019 | Result of Preliminary Examination declared. |
| 15 March 2019 to 17 March 2019 | Main Examination held. |
| 11 April 2019 | Results of the Main Examination declared; only 9 candidates qualified. |
| 29 April 2019 | Supreme Court directs Registrar General of the High Court to be present with answer scripts. |
| 03 May 2019 | Hon’ble Mr. A.K. Sikri, J., a former Supreme Court Judge, requested to assess answer scripts. |
| 24 May 2019 and 11 June 2019 | Justice Sikri visited the High Court of Punjab & Haryana to check answer sheets. |
| 31 July 2019 | Justice Sikri submitted his report. |
| 13 December 2019 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
Aggrieved by the results, the petitioners challenged the selection process, arguing that it was unjust, unfair, and arbitrary. The Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to present the answer scripts. Subsequently, Hon’ble Mr. A.K. Sikri, a former Supreme Court Judge, was appointed to assess the evaluation process. Justice Sikri submitted a report highlighting issues with the evaluation of the Civil Law-I paper, noting that the marking was strict and that candidates had limited time to answer descriptive questions. He suggested three alternatives for awarding grace marks to increase the number of candidates qualifying for the Viva Voce.
Legal Framework
The examination was conducted under the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, as applicable to Haryana, and amended by notification no. GSR1/Const./Art.234 & 309/2017 dated 09.01.2017. The rules stipulated a three-stage examination process: Preliminary Examination, Main Examination, and Viva Voce. The Main Examination consisted of five papers, with specific minimum marks required in each paper and in aggregate to qualify for the Viva Voce. The rules did not specify any minimum marks for the Viva Voce.
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- ✓ The petitioners argued that the evaluation of Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II papers was strict and lacked uniformity, emphasizing the standards laid down in CPIL vs Registrar General of High Court of Delhi.
- ✓ They proposed that 50 grace marks be awarded to all candidates to increase the number of qualified candidates to 150-160, given that no appointments had been made in the Haryana Judicial Service since 2014.
- ✓ The petitioners highlighted the need to shortlist sufficient candidates for the Viva Voce, considering that many candidates had already been selected for other State Judicial Services.
- ✓ They opposed conducting a fresh examination, citing the hardships already faced by the candidates.
- ✓ The petitioners expressed concern about low marks in the Viva Voce, which could prevent them from meeting the 50% aggregate eligibility criteria. They also suggested the use of moderation and scaling techniques to remove variations caused by multiple examiners.
- ✓ They requested that the names and subject marks of all candidates be disclosed after the Main Exam and before the Viva Voce to ensure transparency.
- ✓ The petitioners emphasized that the timelines given in Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission should be strictly adhered to.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- ✓ The respondents, representing the Punjab and Haryana High Court, argued that the selection process was fair and impartial.
- ✓ They contended that there was no need for the Court to interfere with the selection process, as Justice Sikri had not found any fault or illegality.
- ✓ The respondents urged that the standards of the examination should not be diluted by accepting Justice Sikri’s suggestions.
- ✓ They proposed re-advertising the vacant posts and conducting a fresh selection process.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Petitioners) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Re-evaluation of Papers |
|
|
| Awarding of Grace Marks |
|
|
| Transparency and Process |
|
|
| Moderation and Scaling |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the selection process and evaluation method is unjust, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution?
- Whether moderation of marks (grace marks) is needed in the facts and circumstances of the present case?
- Whether re-valuation of Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II papers is required by an Independent Expert Committee?
- Whether the marks obtained in the Main Exam be disclosed before the viva-voce is conducted?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the selection process and evaluation method is unjust, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution? | No | The evaluation method was found to be uniform, as each question was evaluated by one evaluator across all answer sheets. There was no examiner variability, and the strict marking was applied to all candidates equally. |
| Whether moderation of marks (grace marks) is needed in the facts and circumstances of the present case? | Yes | The Court found that the strict marking, coupled with time constraints, had prejudiced the candidates. Moderation was deemed necessary to ensure a fair selection process. |
| Whether re-valuation of Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II papers is required by an Independent Expert Committee? | No | The Court rejected re-evaluation, citing the delay it would cause, Justice Sikri’s thorough examination, and the absence of a provision for re-evaluation in the Recruitment Rules. |
| Whether the marks obtained in the Main Exam be disclosed before the viva-voce is conducted? | No | The Court held that disclosing marks before the viva-voce could lead to bias and affect the impartial evaluation of candidates. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanjay Singh & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission (2007) 3 SCC 720 |
Supreme Court of India | Explained and followed | Guidelines regarding moderation of marks in judicial services examinations. |
| Prashant Ramesh Chakrawar vs UPSC & Ors (2013) 12 SCC 489 |
Supreme Court of India | Followed | Guidelines regarding moderation of marks in judicial services examinations. |
| Sujasha Mukherji vs High Court of Calcutta (2015) 11 SCC 395 |
Supreme Court of India | Followed | Guidelines regarding moderation of marks in judicial services examinations. |
| CPIL vs Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi (2017) 11 SCC 456 |
Supreme Court of India | Explained and distinguished | Standards for evaluation and re-evaluation of answer scripts. |
| Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008) 17 SCC 703 |
Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Timelines for conducting judicial service examinations. |
| Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of Delhi High Court (2018) 14 SCC 129 |
Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Application of moderation in the absence of examiner variability. |
| Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159 |
Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Importance of viva-voce in the selection process. |
| H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759 |
Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of statutory provision. |
| Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714 |
Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of statutory provision. |
| Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 |
Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Impartial evaluation of candidates in viva-voce. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Re-evaluation of Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II papers by an Independent Authority | Rejected. The Court found no need for re-evaluation, citing the delay it would cause, Justice Sikri’s thorough examination, and the absence of a provision for re-evaluation in the Recruitment Rules. |
| Award of 50 grace marks to all candidates | Partially Accepted. The Court deemed it appropriate to award 20 grace marks in Civil Law-I paper and 10 grace marks in Civil Law-II paper. |
| Disclosure of marks obtained in the Main Exam before the viva-voce | Rejected. The Court held that such a practice could lead to bias and affect impartial evaluation in viva-voce. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- ✓ Sanjay Singh & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission [ (2007) 3 SCC 720 ]: The Court relied on this case to explain the concept of moderation and its application in judicial service examinations.
- ✓ Prashant Ramesh Chakrawar vs UPSC & Ors [ (2013) 12 SCC 489 ]: The Court followed the guidelines laid down in this case regarding moderation of marks.
- ✓ Sujasha Mukherji vs High Court of Calcutta [ (2015) 11 SCC 395 ]: The Court followed the principles established in this case regarding moderation of marks.
- ✓ CPIL vs Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi [ (2017) 11 SCC 456 ]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that re-evaluation was ordered in that case as a special measure, and not as a general rule.
- ✓ Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission [ (2008) 17 SCC 703 ]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the need for timely completion of judicial service examinations.
- ✓ Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of Delhi High Court [ (2018) 14 SCC 129 ]: The Court distinguished this case, explaining that moderation is not applicable when there is no examiner variability.
- ✓ Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan [ (1981) 4 SCC 159 ]: The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of the viva-voce as an integral part of the selection process.
- ✓ H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur [ (2010) 6 SCC 759 ]: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that re-evaluation should not be directed in the absence of statutory provision.
- ✓ Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [ (2004) 6 SCC 714 ]: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that re-evaluation should not be directed in the absence of statutory provision.
- ✓ Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana [ (1985) 4 SCC 417 ]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that measures that foster bias in the minds of the interviewers should be avoided.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair and equitable selection process. The Court acknowledged that while the evaluation process was uniform, the strict marking and time constraints had prejudiced the candidates. The Court was also mindful of the fact that the posts had been vacant for a considerable period, and that the candidates had been waiting for a long time for the selection process to conclude. The Court’s decision to award grace marks was a measure to balance the need for maintaining standards with the need to provide a fair opportunity to the candidates. The Court also considered the report of Justice Sikri, which highlighted the issues with the evaluation process.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fairness and Equity | 40% |
| Remedying Strict Marking | 30% |
| Time Constraints | 15% |
| Vacancies and Delay | 10% |
| Report of Justice Sikri | 5% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the alternative interpretations of the evaluation process, specifically whether the strict marking was discriminatory. The Court rejected this interpretation, finding that the strict marking was applied uniformly to all candidates. However, the Court recognized that the strict marking, coupled with time constraints, had created an unfair disadvantage for the candidates. The Court also considered the possibility of re-evaluation but rejected it due to the potential delay and lack of statutory provision.
The final decision was reached by balancing the need for maintaining standards with the need to ensure a fair selection process. The Court decided to award grace marks to rectify the prejudice caused by the strict marking, while also ensuring that the selection process was completed in a timely manner. The Court also rejected the disclosure of marks before the viva-voce to prevent potential bias.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- ✓ The evaluation method, while uniform, was overly strict and did not account for the time constraints faced by the candidates.
- ✓ The strict marking had resulted in an unusually low number of candidates qualifying for the viva-voce.
- ✓ The posts had been vacant for a considerable period, and the candidates had been waiting for a long time for the selection process to conclude.
- ✓ Justice Sikri’s report had highlighted the issues with the evaluation process and had suggested alternatives for awarding grace marks.
- ✓ The Court wanted to ensure that the selection process was completed in a timely manner.
The Court stated, “The marking criteria and evaluation method was strict but it was so for everyone… The Evaluators failed to keep a pragmatic view that source of recruitment was likely to be the same in a fresh attempt also and that candidates had only 8.5 minutes to answer each question and time constraint did not allow them to give their best of performance.”
The Court also noted, “Considering that the marking was strict but not discriminatory, the remedy of moderation of marks, in order to remove the variation caused by multiple examiners and dearth of time, is the only effective, equitable and efficacious solution.”
Further, the Court observed, “The alternative prayer of the petitioners for re-evaluation by an Independent Expert Committee is not worth acceptance… there is no provision for re-evaluation in the Recruitment Rules and any such direction would run counter to the mandate of this Court…”.
There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Grace marks can be awarded in cases where the evaluation process is found to be overly strict and has prejudiced the candidates.
- ✓ Moderation of marks is an appropriate remedy to address issues arising from strict marking and time constraints.
- ✓ Re-evaluation of answer scripts should not be directed in the absence of a statutory provision.
- ✓ Disclosure of marks before the viva-voce can lead to bias and should be avoided.
- ✓ The Court can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice in cases where there are flaws in the selection process.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court was directed to award 20 grace marks in the Civil Law-I paper and 10 grace marks in the Civil Law-II paper to all candidates of the 2019 Examination.
- The High Court was directed to prepare fresh results of the Main (Written) Examination within two weeks and complete the selection process within four weeks thereafter.
- The entire selection process was to be completed before 15th February, 2020.
- The left out vacant posts, along with vacancies that had occurred meanwhile and those anticipated within the next six months, were to be advertised and filled in accordance with the timeline prescribed in Malik Mazhar Sultan case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that moderation of marks, by awarding grace marks, is an appropriate remedy where the evaluation process is found to be strict and has prejudiced the candidates. This case clarifies that while uniformity in evaluation is essential, the evaluation process must also be fair and account for the practical constraints faced by the candidates. This case also reiterates that re-evaluation should not be directed in the absence of a statutory provision.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pranav Verma & Ors vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2019) provided significant relief to candidates who were affected by the strict marking in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination – 2017. By ordering the award of grace marks, the Court ensured that more candidates would have a fair opportunity to qualify for the viva voce. The judgment also clarified the principles related to moderation of marks and re-evaluation of answer scripts in judicial service examinations. The Court’s decision balanced the need for maintaining standards with the need to ensure a fair and equitable selection process.