As per case facts, Petitioners sought re-evaluation of their answer sheets for Additional District Judge posts, alleging arbitrary mark cuttings. Petitioner-1 failed the written exam, while Petitioner-2, despite performing well ... in the written exam, missed qualifying aggregate marks after the viva voce. The High Court recruitment notifications explicitly prohibited re-evaluation, allowing only limited re-checking. Petitioner-2's re-evaluation requests were rejected. The question arose whether re-evaluation was permissible despite the explicit prohibition in recruitment rules and if alleged mark cuttings warranted such intervention. Finally, the Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that re-evaluation is generally not permitted without specific rules, and observed the alleged cuttings were routine, initialed rectifications, not tampering. It distinguished the petitioners' cited judgments and dismissed the petitions, finding no infirmity in the selection process.