Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Judicial Service Exam Criteria: Taniya Malik vs. High Court of Delhi (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 16 February 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 123 (16 February 2018)

Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Amitava Roy, J.

Can a High Court set minimum qualifying marks for each paper in a judicial service exam, and is it necessary to allow re-evaluation of answer sheets? The Supreme Court of India addressed these questions in a batch of writ petitions challenging the Delhi Judicial Service Examination of 2015. The court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the validity of the exam criteria. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy.

Case Background

The Delhi High Court conducted the Delhi Judicial Service Examination in 2015, advertising 100 vacancies. The exam was held in two stages: a preliminary exam, followed by a main written exam for candidates shortlisted for the viva voce (interview). The criteria required candidates to secure a minimum of 50% aggregate marks and 40% in each subject in the main examination to qualify for the interview. After the results of the main exam were declared, only 64 candidates qualified for the interview. Several candidates filed writ petitions challenging the criteria, seeking relaxation of the cut-off marks, re-evaluation of answer sheets, and moderation of marks.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Several writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015. These petitions questioned the minimum cut-off marks, demanded re-evaluation of answer sheets, and sought moderation of marks. The petitioners argued that the High Court should have called three times the number of candidates for interviews as compared to the number of seats and that the cut-off marks for each subject should be reduced from 40% to 33%. They also sought re-evaluation of the criminal law paper, claiming that it was too strictly marked. One petitioner, who scored 49.9% marks, requested that her marks be rounded off to 50% to make her eligible for the interview. Another petitioner challenged the minimum marks for the viva voce, arguing that it was unreasonable.

Legal Framework

The Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, govern the selection process for the Delhi Judicial Service. Rule 15 of the said rules stipulates the criteria for calling candidates for viva voce. The advertisement for the 2015 examination specified that candidates needed to obtain 50% aggregate marks and 40% in each subject in the main examination to be eligible for the interview. The Supreme Court considered the arguments in light of these rules and the principles of fair selection.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Submissions:

• The petitioners argued that the 40% cut-off mark in each written paper was unduly harsh. They contended that even candidates with high aggregate marks failed to qualify due to this requirement.
• They submitted that the criminal law paper was marked very strictly, resulting in very few candidates scoring above 50%.
• They relied on Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720 and Ajithkumar P. & Ors. v. Remin K.R. & Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 778, arguing that moderation of marks should be ordered.
• They also cited Sujasha Mukherji v. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta & Ors. (2015) 11 SCC 395, to support their claim for moderation.
• One petitioner requested that her 49.9% marks be rounded off to 50% to make her eligible for the interview.
• Another petitioner argued that the minimum passing marks for the interview should not be fixed or should be relaxed for reserved category candidates.
• The petitioners argued that the High Court should have called three times the number of candidates for interviews as compared to the number of seats.

Respondent’s Submissions (High Court of Delhi):

• The High Court contended that moderation was not required as each part of the answer sheet was evaluated by a single examiner.
• It argued that minimum pass marks were fixed considering the importance of the Higher Judicial Service.
• The High Court submitted that there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets under the 1970 Rules.
• It was argued that the minimum aggregate marks were mandatory and could not be relaxed by rounding off.
• The High Court defended the minimum marks for the interview, stating that it is an essential part of judging a candidate’s suitability.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether moderation of marks was required in the examination process.
2. Whether re-evaluation of answer scripts should be ordered.
3. Whether prescribing minimum pass marks for the viva voce examination was valid.
4. Whether the minimum cut-off marks in the written examination should be relaxed from 40% to 33%.
5. Whether the principle of rounding off marks could be applied to make a candidate eligible for the interview.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720*, stating that moderation is not required when a single examiner evaluates each part of the paper.
• The Court distinguished Sujasha Mukherji v. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta & Ors. (2015) 11 SCC 395*, noting that the proper procedure for moderation was not followed in that case.
• The Court followed Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 759*, reiterating that re-evaluation is not permissible without a specific provision.
• The Court followed K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 395*, emphasizing the importance of interviews and the validity of prescribing minimum marks.
• The Court followed The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. G. Hemlatha and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 568*, holding that rounding off is not permissible when a specific aggregate is required.
• The Court distinguished Ajithkumar P. & Ors. v. Remin K.R. & Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 778*, as it involved relaxation of cut-off marks in a preliminary exam not governed by rules.
• The Court followed Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr. vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr., (2011) 8 SCC 108*, stating that when emphasis is given in the rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained, there can be no relaxation or rounding-off.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several key points in its reasoning:

• The court highlighted the importance of maintaining the standards of the judicial service and the necessity of having a fair and transparent selection process.
• The court noted that moderation is only required when multiple examiners evaluate the same subject to ensure uniformity in evaluation.
• The court reiterated the settled law that re-evaluation is not permissible in the absence of a specific provision in the rules.
• The court emphasized that interviews are essential to assess a candidate’s overall personality, suitability, and capacity for the judicial service.
• The court underscored that minimum qualifying marks are necessary to ensure that candidates have a basic understanding of all the subjects.
• The court clarified that rounding off marks is not allowed when a specific aggregate is prescribed for eligibility.
• The court observed that candidates who participate in an examination with the knowledge of the rules cannot challenge those rules after failing to qualify.

Sentiment Analysis

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Minimum qualifying marks for each subject in a judicial service exam are valid and necessary to ensure a basic understanding of all subjects.
• Re-evaluation of answer sheets is not permissible unless specifically provided for in the rules.
• Interviews are a crucial part of the selection process and minimum passing marks can be prescribed for them.
• Rounding off of marks is not allowed when a specific aggregate is prescribed for eligibility.
• Candidates who participate in an examination with the knowledge of the rules cannot challenge those rules after failing to qualify.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment. However, it noted that the suggestions made by the Court in the decision rendered in CPIL v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi have been carried out for subsequent examinations for 2016.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court’s criteria for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, including minimum cut-off marks for each paper, the absence of re-evaluation, and minimum marks for the interview, were valid. This judgment reinforces the principle that examination bodies have the authority to set reasonable criteria to maintain the standards of the service and that candidates cannot challenge those criteria after participating in the examination with the knowledge of the rules. There is no change in the previous position of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the Delhi High Court’s examination criteria. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining standards in the judicial service and the validity of the High Court’s selection process. The judgment clarifies that moderation is not required when a single examiner evaluates each part of a paper, re-evaluation is not permissible without a specific provision, and minimum qualifying marks are essential for both written exams and interviews. The court also held that rounding off marks is not allowed when a specific aggregate is prescribed for eligibility.