CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -1-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA  

     AT CHANDIGARH      

       Reserved on     : 18.11.2025

          Pronounced on  : 17.02.2026

          Uploaded on      : 17.02.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or the full Judgment is pronounced:    Full judgment.

1. CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)

PUNEET AGGARWAL                   

                  ... PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS  

                     ... RESPONDENTS

2. CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

HARVINDER SINGH JOHAL                   

                 ... PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS

                     ... RESPONDENTS

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTIC E

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY

Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate,

with Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, Advocate,

and Mr. Nishant, Advocate,

for the petitioner (in CWP-29498-2024).

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Senior Advocate,

(through Video Conferencing)

with Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate,

for the petitioner (in CWP-3255-2025).

Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate,

with Ms.Shubreet Kaur Saron, Advocate,

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -2-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

and Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate,

for respondent-High Court.

*****

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India have been preferred by the respective petitioners seeking

quashing of the act of respondents in not considering their candidature for the

post of Additional District Judge based on the notifications dated 14.11.2023 and

15.11.2023 issued by the respondent High Court, and further seeking writ of

mandamus directing respondents to consider their candidature for the said post.

2. In nut shell, the case pleaded by the petitioners in their respective

petitions happens to be that the petitioner in CWP-29498-2024 (hereinafter

referred to as petitioner-1) had applied for the post of Additional District Judge

in the State of Haryana on the basis of notification no. 188 Gaz.I/VI.F.2 dated

15.11.2023, while the petitioner in CWP-3255-2025 (hereinafter referred to as

petitioner-2) had applied for the post of Additional District Judge in the States of

Punjab as well as Haryana on the basis of respective notifications No. 185

Gaz.I/VI.F.2 dated 14.11.2023 and 188 Gaz.I/VI.F.2 dated 15.11.2023. 

2.1   As per the said notifications, the examination comprised of two

stages i.e. written test as well as viva voce. The syllabus and format was duly

published in Annexure-II of the notification. The result of written examination of

Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination 2024 based on the aforesaid

notification was declared wherein petitioner-1 was shown unsuccessful in the

written examination.

2.2 While petitioner-2 who had applied for Haryana as well as Punjab

Superior Judicial Service, was declared successful in the written examinations

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -3-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

and then appeared in the viva voce. The final results of the examinations were

declared wherein petitioner-2 was found unsuccessful, falling short of 09 and 14

marks respectively in the examination for the respective States of Haryana and

Punjab. Petitioner-2 sought information under RTI and found there were cuttings

of marks in various papers. It is claimed by petitioner-2 that he had successfully

topped Delhi  Higher  Judicial  Service  Examination  2023 but was  declared

unsuccessful in the Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Service examination

2024 despite having scored 2

nd

 highest marks in the written examination therein,

for unknown reasons to deny him the post.

2.3 Thus, claiming primarily the re-evaluation of their answer-sheets

suspecting the act of alleged cuttings in the answer-sheet, the petitioners have

preferred the present writ petitions.

3. The main issue raised in the instant petitions happens to be as to

whether the petitioners are entitled to get their answer-sheets re-evaluated in the

light of alleged cuttings in the marks in the answer sheets.

4. Learned Senior counsels representing the petitioners have inter alia

assailed the rampant cuttings in the awarded marks in the answer-sheets of the

petitioners claiming the same to have 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 mind as to the correctness of

the answers which lead to rampant cuttings in the marks awarded to various

questions attempted by the petitioners. They claimed that had such unwanted

cuttings be not there, the petitioners would have been successful candidates.

4.1   The   learned   Senior   counsel     representing     petitioner-2     has

emphasized   that   petitioner-2   was   declared   unsuccessful   for   the   post   of

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -4-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

Additional District Judge in the States of Punjab and Haryana on account of

having falling short by merely 14 and 09 marks respectively although he had

fared well  in written examination as well as  viva voce. He pointed out that

petitioner-2 had even scored 2

nd

 highest marks in the written examination.

4.2 Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner-2 has further

pointed out that  petitioner-2 eventually topped the Delhi Higher Judicial Service

Examination 2023 and had such rampant cuttings being not their in the marks

awarded, he would have been successful in the examination conducted  in the

States of Punjab and Haryana as well.

4.3 The   learned   senior   counsel   have   submitted  that   the   undesired

cuttings in the evaluation process by the examiners have marred the careers of

the petitioners.

4.4 They further submit that the powers of the Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India are much wide enough to undo the injustice where

ever found and as such the re-evaluation of the answer-sheets of the petitioners is

sought to be done by way of issuance of writ to undo the injustice done to the

petitioners due to undesired cuttings in the award of marks in their respective

answer-sheets. They have relied upon the judgment cited as Pranav Verma and

others vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh & Anr. 2020(15) SCC 377; Rustam Garg vs. Punjab and Haryana

High Court Chandigarh and others. Neutral Citation No.2025:PHHC:103042-

DB; and  Jasmine vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2025(1) PLR 385.

5. Per contra learned Senior counsel representing the respondent High

Court submits that petitions lack merits and deserve dismissal. She submitted

that the re-evaluation is not allowed as it is specifically and clearly mentioned in

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -5-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

the   notifications   itself.   She   has   referred   to   Clause   12.18   of   the   relevant

notifications dated 15.11.2023  and 14.11.2023 pertaining to Direct recruitment

of Punjab Superior Judicial Service 2023-2024 and Haryana Superior Judicial

Service 2023-2024 respectively which provide for  prohibition for re-evaluation

and only limited rechecking. Learned Senior Counsel categorically contends that

such   clause   in   the   respective   notifications   was   never   challenged   by   the

petitioners. As such once re-evaluation is not permissible under Rules, the

petitioners have no case in  their favour  to seek judicial review thereof.   In

support of her contention she has referred to the judgments cited as  Mukul

Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana and Others, CWP No. 34049 of 2024; Vikesh

Kumar Gupta and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2021) 2 SCC

309;  Ran Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,

(2018) 2  SCC 357; Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public

Service     Commission,   Patna,   (2004)   6   SCC   714;   Board  of   Secondary

Education   vs.   Pravas   Ranjan   Panda   and  another,   (2004)   13   SCC   383;

Himachal   Pradesh   Public   Service   Commission   vs.   Mukesh   Thakur   and

another, (2010) 6 SCC 759; and Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs.

Dr. Yerra Trinadh and Others, (2022) 18 SCC 716.

6. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent

that as far as the petitioner-2 is concerned, he after being declared successful in

written examinations of Punjab Higher Judicial Service as well as Haryana

Judicial Service, had  even  appeared in the viva voce without raising any

grievance or protest regarding the issue of alleged cuttings. She contends that in

fact the alleged cuttings in the award of marks in the answer sheet are actually

the corrections/rectifications made by the Evaluators during evaluation process

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -6-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

itself which were duly initialed/signed by them. She emphasized that infact 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 evaluation process did not amount to any

tampering as alleged by the petitioners especially when the evaluation was

conducted by way of ‘table marking’ thus maintaining absolute uniformity. By

referring to  the evaluation process, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the

evaluation process is under the  direct  personal supervision of Co-coordinator

who is a senior academician of the rank of Vice Chancellor of the National Law

School and in the evaluation process one question is assigned to  each evaluator

for evaluation of all law papers of the candidates thereby making a common

yardstick to be followed for all the candidates without there being any scope of

discrepancy.  She further submitted that as far as petitioner-2 is concerned he had

made the representation regarding   re-evaluation, which was rejected by the

Recruitment   Committee   (Superior   Judicial   Service)   in   its   meeting   dated

20.01.2025   and   conveyed   to   the   petitioner   vide   letter   dated   23.01.2025

(Annexure A-2).  She submitted that the examination had been conducted in a

fair and impartial manner, evaluation was carried under the Supervision of

Coordinator who happens to be a Senior Academician, by way of table marking,

leaving no scope of any error. The cuttings so alleged by the petitioners in the

answer   sheet   are   nothing   but   just   corrections/   rectifications   made   by   the

Evaluators under their signatures with no such cuttings on the title page of the

answer sheet.   She thus submitted that once the re-evaluation is especially

prohibited  in the notification itself, which  has  never been challenged by the

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -7-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

petitioners, the petitioners have no case in their favour for grant of writ as prayed

for. Hence she prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

7. We have considered the respective  arguments and also perused the

record. It is not disputed that the respondent had issued notification dated

14.11.2023 and 15.11.2023 for the direct recruitment to Punjab Superior Judicial

Service 2023-24 and Haryana Superior Judicial Service 2023-24, respectively

both the petitioners being fulfilling the eligibility criteria applied thereunder. The

examination comprised of written examination as well as viva voce of 750 marks

and 250 marks respectively.  As per the Scheme of the examination notified, the

candidates securing 40% or more marks in each paper in the written examination

were to be called for  viva voce  and required to secure 50% aggregate as

qualifying marks. It is evident from the record that petitioner-1 could not qualify

written examination, failing to obtain qualifying marks of 40% in Civil Law  and

Criminal Law papers and as such was not called for  viva voce. Whereas

petitioner-2 qualified the written examination having scored 346/750 marks and

351/750 marks in the written examination for the States of Punjab and Haryana

respectively and was called for viva voce wherein he obtained 140/250 marks as

is evident from the result declared but could not secure 50% aggregate marks to

qualify, he fell short of 14 and 09 marks respectively to qualify for the post of

Additional District Judge in the States of Punjab and Haryana respectively.

8. Apart   from   aforesaid   factual   position,   petitioner-2   also   made

representations for re-evaluation dated 08.11.2024 and 16.11.2024 which were

rejected by the Recruitment Committee (Superior Judicial Service) in its meeting

dated   20.01.2025.   The   decision   of   the   committee   dated   20.01.2025   was

conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure A-2). It is

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -8-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

apprised by  learned Senior Counsel for the High Court that while rejecting the

representations,  the Committee had observed as under:-

“Meeting Note and representations perused. The representationist

failed to secure the place in the selection process of Punjab and

Haryana Superior Judicial Service 2023%24. The submission made

by the representationist with regard to cutting, overwriting,

alteration etc. In the answer sheets are actually

corrections/rectifications made by the evaluators during the

evaluation process. There is no cutting/overwriting or alteration in

the marks posted on the title page of the answer sheets by the

evaluators. Nothing has come to notice that there is any change of

marks to the disadvantage of the candidate to fail him. The

allegations of the representationist are baseless and frivolous as the

entire selection process is carried out with utmost confidentiality

and transparency. Thus, the representation, being devoid of merit is

hereby rejected. He be informed accordingly.”

9. Before   proceedings  further,   a   glance   at   the   relevant  provision

contained in notifications No. 185 Gaz.I/VI.F.2 dated 14.11.2023 and 188

Gaz.I/VI.F.2 dated 15.11.2023, would reveal that as per clause 12.18 thereof, the

re-evaluation of answer sheet was specifically barred. The relevant clause reads

as under:-

“ 12.18    Re-evaluation of answer sheets is not allowed. Only re-

checking of answer sheets (i.e no part of the answer sheets has

been left unevaluated or there is no totaling error) can be allowed

on a  written request from a candidate addressed to the Registrar

(Recruitment), High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

through   Co-ordination   Branch,   High   Court   of   Punjab  and

Haryana, Chandigarh, on payment of fee of Rs. 500/- per answer

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -9-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

sheet (in the shape of Indian Postal Orders payable in favour of

Registrar   General,   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana,

Chandigarh) within thirty days from the date of display of marks

on the official website of this Court. No separate request in this

regard by any candidate  or any other person on their behalf shall

be entertained under the RTI Act for re-evaluation/re-checking

etc.” 

10. The perusal of the aforesaid provision clarifies that the re-evaluation

of the answer sheets was not allowed and only rechecking of the answer sheets,

so as to ascertain that there is no totaling error, was permissible for which

specific procedure has been prescribed therein. 

10.1 Admittedly none of the petitioner applied for the permissible re-

checking. 

10.2 Only petitioner-2 had moved representations for re-evaluation dated

08.11.2024 and 16.11.2024 which were however rejected by the Recruitment

Committee (Superior Judicial Service). It is not out of place to mention here that

the representations moved by him were not as per the prescribed format for

rechecking which was permissible under Clause 12.18. 

10.3 It is also not disputed that after having obtained the response under

RTI, the petitioners have not disputed any answer attempted  by them having

been left un-evaluated. 

10.4 In view of the existence of the specific Clause in the advertisement

itself barring any re-evaluation, it is apt to mention here that such clause has

never been challenged by either of the petitioners nor the same could have been

challenged once they have actually participated in the selection process. 

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -10-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

11. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is observed that in

view of the specific clause in the relevant notifications making the re-evaluation

not permissible, in the advertisement itself on the basis of which the petitioners

actually participated in the selection process, the petitioners have no right to

claim re-evaluation. 

12. It has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar

Gupta’s case (supra) that in the recruitment process scope for judicial review is

limited. It has further held that though re-evaluation can be directed if rules

permit, but practice of re-evaluation and secreting of questions by Courts which

lack expertise in academic matters must be discouraged. It is also held therein

that  it is not permissible for High court to examine question papers and answer

sheets itself,   and the Court must show deference and consideration to the

recommendation of expert committee. 

13. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court while examining the scope of

judicial review with particular reference to re-evaluation has held in Ran Vijay

Singh’s case  (supra) that the Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the

answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and academic

matters are best left to the academicians. The relevant part of the assertions made

by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh’s case (supra) are as under:-

“30.1.  If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination

permits the re%evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an

answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the

examination may permit it;

30.2.  If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination

does not permit re%evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -11-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re%evaluation

or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any

“inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation”

and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been

committed;

30.3.  The court should not at all re%evaluate or scrutinise the

answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and

academic matters are best left to academics;

30.4.  The court should presume the correctness of the key answers

and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5.  In the event of a doubt,

the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the

candidate.

31.  On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not

play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re%

evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the

examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The

entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only

because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or

perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous

question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally,

though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since

mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has

shown one way out of an impasse — exclude the suspect or

offending question. 32.  It is rather unfortunate that despite several

decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above,

there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This

places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where

they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a

massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes

with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates

put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must

not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -12-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity

of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court

must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the

examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by

the candidates who have successfully participated in the

examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals

are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where

there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a

lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even

the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise

of the result of the examination — whether they have passed or not;

whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court;

whether they will get admission in a college or university or not;

and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory

situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of

uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The

overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”

13.1 Similar is the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mukul

Dhankar’s   case  (supra)  wherein   the   aforementioned   view   has   also   been

followed. 

14. The Hon’ble Apex court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava’s (supra) has

held that the re-evaluation of the answer books cannot be permitted in the

absence of any specific provision/rule in that regard. 

15. In this regard, learned counsel for the High Court has also referred

to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences   case  (supra)  wherein   also   the   emphasis   has   been   laid   on  the

impermissibility of issuing directions to re-evaluate the answer scripts in absence

of any specific provision in relevant rules.  The practice of calling for answer

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -13-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

sheets  and  thereafter  ordered  re-evaluation in the absence  of any specific

provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too in exercise of

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was strongly disapproved

by Hon’ble Apex Court. 

16. Similarly, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Mukesh Thakur’s case (supra) that the Court cannot take on itself the task of

examiner and examine the discrepancy or inconsistency in the question papers

and the valuation thereof it was observed that it is not permissible for High Court

to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself. It has further been held

therein that in a recruitment process, the re-evaluation of answer books is not

permissible   in   the   absence   of   any   specific   provision   under   the   statutory

Rules/Regulations and therefore, the Court should not generally direct the re-

evaluation. 

17. The aforesaid pronouncements have, therefore, clarified the position

that in a selection process until and unless the Rules specifically so permit, the

re-evaluation of answer sheets cannot be undertaken. It is also worth mentioning

here that the scheme of examination in the present case provided for subjective

type answers in the main written examination and the response given by the

different candidates differ from person to person as every candidate has his own

mindset and the qualitative analysis of a particular question to be answered in the

way he thinks more appropriate. The answers so given by different candidates

happen to be qualitative and not quantitative and hence a proper assessment

thereof could only be done by none else than the expert in the subject.  The Court

in such a situation cannot, certainly, attain the role of a super examiner. 

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -14-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

18. Much emphasis has been laid on behalf of petitioners on the fact

that there happens to be alleged cuttings  in the marks in the answer sheets on

account of which they seek re-evaluation, however considering the fact that the

scheme of the examination required descriptive answers, the evaluation thereof is

precisely in the domain of the subject experts, which in the present case was

done by way of table marking by the experienced examiners under direct

supervision of a senior academician of the rank of Vice Chancellor of National

Law School and further one particular question was assigned to one particular

evaluator for evaluation of that very question attempted by all the candidates,

there being a common yard stick followed for all candidates, thus maintaining

absolute uniformity. Simply on account of the alleged cuttings in the marks, by

itself, would not be a sufficient ground for ordering the re-evaluation especially

when the Rules do not  permit re-evaluation.  

18.1 To ascertain the effect of alleged cuttings in the marks in the answer

sheets of the petitioners, their answer sheets were called for and perused which

show that in fact the alleged cuttings 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. This entire process

appears to have been done during the process of evaluation itself which was

undertaken by way of table marking. Moreover, such alleged rectification bears

the initials/signatures of the respective examiners. Further, there is no  cutting or

over writing on the title page of the answer sheets of the petitioners. The

corrections/rectification which have been projected as ‘alleged cuttings’ by the

petitioners, are nothing but constitute part of evaluation process itself being duly

initialed by the respective examiners, and there being no cutting or rectification

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -15-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

on the title page of the answer sheets would also negate the allegations of post

evaluation tampering, especially when the evaluation process was undertaken by

way of table marking by the academic experts in the respective subjects under

the supervision of senior academician, each being allocated one particular

question, which tantamount to applying common yard stick to be followed for all

the candidates   and therefore the alleged cuttings cannot in any manner be

termed as tampering in any manner. 

18.2  In fact, on account of the alleged cuttings, the marks of petitioner-1

had increased in Civil Law-I paper which ironically was the only paper wherein

he qualified in written examination. As regards petitioner-2 he had qualified in

the written examinations and even participated in the viva voce without raising

any objection to the alleged cuttings and it was  only when he failed to qualify in

the overall aggregates in both the examinations that he moved the representations

for the first time. It is, therefore observed that  the alleged cuttings  in the answer

sheets were nothing but a routine evaluation process duly initialed by the

examiners for the respective question in the table marking process and there

being no cutting on the title page of the answer sheets, thus the same  cannot be

termed as post evaluation tampering and we find no merit in this argument

advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 

19. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioners to the judgment

rendered in  Pranav Verma’s case, Rustam Garg’s case and Jasmine’s case

(supra),  however the preposition laid down therein is clearly distinguishable

from the facts of the present case. 

19.1. In Pranav Verma’s case (supra) the issue was of uniformly strict

marking in the examination of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) wherein

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -16-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

only 9 out of 1195 candidates qualified for viva voce and considering the same

Hon’ble Apex Court had held the necessity of moderation of marks to remedy

the harsh evaluation in the examination. Hon’ble Apex Court while exercising

the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India had uniformly awarded

grace marks to all the candidates who appeared in the examination process and

not just to a particular petitioner.   Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not

acceded to the prayer for re-evaluation in that case too. The relevant portion of

the judgment reads as under:- 

“ 14. In the instant case, Justice Sikri critically examined the

selection process as well as the evaluation method and it is explicit

from his report that the procedure of evaluation was ‘uniform’. We

are of the view that evaluation done by multiple evaluators i.e. one

Evaluator examining and marking one question in all the mark%

sheets, ensures uniformity and prevents chance grading. Every

candidate’s answers are marked on same parameters by the same

examiner. There can possibly be no other better method to ensure

uniformity in evaluation. The petitioners have stated that as per the

information received via RTI no model ‘answer key’ was present. It

gives more credance to the afore%stated method of evaluation as no

model ‘answer key’ ought to be devised for the Main Exam, the

purpose whereof is not to just assess the knowledge of candidates

but also to evaluate their analytical ability. In the present case,

there was no Examiner Variability, therefore, Justice Sikri has very

aptly remarked that, “this was well intended move to attain

uniformity in evaluation”. This method ensures equal level play

field for all candidates. The only setback was lack of holistic view

and lack of realistic expectations in the examiner’s mind, for which

there are adequate remedies as discussed in the later part of this

order.

15. The marking criteria and evaluation method was strict but it was

so for everyone. This was may be for the reason that one Evaluator

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -17-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

checked one answer in each script and in this manner the entire lot

of scripts were marked. 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. Even those candidates who covered all aspects

briefly were not awarded proper marks. Unlike the hypothetical

illustration given in Sanjay Singh’s case (supra), it was not a case

where some candidates were subjected to strict marking and others

had an advantage of lenient marking, so as to draw an inference

that the evaluation method was discriminatory or arbitrary.

xxxx

23. Firstly, we may very briefly emphasise the need of viva%voce as

an integral part of selection process for certain posts. This Court

in  Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159, observed that

“6. … The written examination assesses the man's intellect

and the interview test the man himself and “the twain shall

meet” for a proper selection.... [I]n the case of services to

which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons

of mature personality, interview test may be the only way,

subject to basic and essential academic and professional

requirements being satisfied...”

The viva%voce and Written Examination (Main Exam), thus,

both have their own importance in a selection process and it is for

the interviewing panel to decide how many marks be awarded to a

candidate keeping in view his/her performance in interview.

Secondly, the composition of Selection Committee is the sole

prerogative of Chief Justice of the High Court and this Court need

not venture into the issue which pertains to exercise of

administrative power (s) of the Chief Justice.

24. The alternative prayer of the petitioners for re%evaluation by an

Independent Expert Committee is not worth acceptance. Firstly, for

the reason that these 107 posts are already lying vacant for a

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -18-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

considerable long period and the re%evaluation would further delay

it. Secondly, Justice Sikri has thoroughly examined the fact situation

before recommending the award of grace marks. Thirdly, there is no

provision for re%evaluation in the Recruitment Rules and any such

direction would run counter to the mandate of this Court in H.P.

Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur , laying down that in

the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory

rules/regulations, the Courts should not generally direct re%

evaluation.”

19.2. So far as, Rustam Garg’s case (supra)   is concerned, in that case

the controversy pertained to the meaning  and usage of an English idiom which

did not require qualitative and subjective analysis, but the English idiom had an

accepted meaning and it did not require analysis of legal reasoning, narrative

composition, and therefore ordered  re-evaluation only to that particular meaning

of English idiom from independent expert. The aforesaid case is distinguishable

from the facts of the present case wherein the petitioners have sought re-

evaluation of the papers attempted by them in various subjects of law as well as

languages which happens to be descriptive in nature, requiring essay type

descriptive answers involving the qualitative analysis thereof by the candidates. 

19.3. In Jasmine’s case (supra) in fact the writ petition was dismissed by

this Court. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-

“Reverting to the case in hand, the expert/examiner has perused the

answer given by the petitioner to the question in issue and

thereafter has chosen to award zero marks to the petitioner for the

answer. We have perused the question in issue and answer thereto

given by the petitioner and, in our considered opinion, it cannot be

said that such evaluation was palpably incorrect or egregious. The

petitioner is verily seeking this Court to be a super%evaluator,

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -19-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

supplanting its view for that of the examiner/expert. This Court is

indubitably convinced that, it cannot tread this path, in the factual

matrix of the present case. Further, Clause 33 of the Advertisement

clearly proscribes re%evaluation of the answer sheets. It only

permits limited re%checking of the answer sheets, to the extent i.e.

as to whether some part of the answer sheet has been left

unevaluated or there is a totalling error. In the case in hand, none

of these situations emerge, much less are pleaded. Ergo in the

attending the facts and circumstances of the writ petition in hand,

the same deserves to be rejected.”

20. Thus, from the above discussion it emerges that the petitioners have

sought re-evaluation in the answer sheets merely on the premise that there have

been alleged cuttings in the marks awarded to the various answers. As have been

discussed above, the alleged cuttings in the awards for different answers have

been found to have been  done in the  evaluation  process  itself under  the

initials/signatures of the respective examiners. Moreover, the evaluation process

had been done by way of table marking with particular question allocated to a

particular examiner, expert in the subject, for all the candidates, under direct

supervision of senior academician of the level of Vice-Chancellor of a National

Law School, coupled with   the fact that there is no cutting in the awards

mentioned in the title page of the answer sheets, would lead to the only inference

that such cuttings were not in any manner post evaluation tampering but a

routine  bona fide  rectification done during the evaluation process itself. The

rules for the examination did not permit any re-evaluation, to be specific clause

12.18 prohibits the same. Therefore, in such circumstances, no question of any

re-evaluation arises at all. Only re-checking was permissible but none of the

CWP-29498-2024 (O&M)                         -20-                

CWP-3255-2025 (O&M)

petitioners applied for re-checking in accordance with the process duly notified

in the advertisement. 

21. Thus, the petitioners have not been able to point out any infirmity in

the selection process, so as to call for any interference therein. 

22. As a consequent, finding no merits in the instant writ petitions the

same are hereby dismissed. 

23. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SANJIV BERRY)             (SHEEL NAGU)

       JUDGE                                 CHIEF JUSTICE

Dated: 17.02.2026       

Gyan

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No