Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Re-Evaluation of Rajasthan Judicial Services Exam

The case of Sonal Gupta & Ors. vs. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr. involves a significant Supreme Court ruling on the fairness of evaluation in competitive examinations. The judgment, delivered on October 24, 2024, dismissed petitions seeking the re-evaluation of answer sheets in the Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS) Examination 2024. The Court ruled that there was no evidence of arbitrary marking in the English Essay Paper and upheld the examination process.

Background of the Case

A total of 109 petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the results of the RJS Examination 2024. The examination consisted of three stages:

• Preliminary Examination (June 23, 2024)
• Main Examination (August 31 – September 1, 2024)
• Interview Round

The dispute arose when the petitioners, who had qualified in the preliminary exam, received unexpectedly low marks in the English Essay Paper (Language Paper-II) of the main exam. The petitioners alleged that they were awarded arbitrary marks, leading to their disqualification from the interview round.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-pay-disparity-for-artificers-in-indian-navy/

Petitioners’ Arguments

• The petitioners claimed that the marking process was arbitrary and lacked transparency.
• Many candidates, despite attempting all questions, received zero marks, which was deemed inexplicable in a subjective exam.
• The limited space provided in the Question Paper-cum-Answer Booklet hindered their ability to write comprehensively.
• With over 14,000 answer sheets checked within a month, they questioned whether proper evaluation was conducted.
• They sought re-evaluation of their answer sheets by an expert committee.

Respondents’ Arguments

• The Rajasthan High Court defended the evaluation process, stating that distinct sets of English professors from government colleges assessed the papers to ensure fairness.
• There were no minimum qualifying marks for the language papers, making the claims of intentional failure baseless.
• The marking criteria were uniformly applied to all candidates, as evidenced by the overall distribution of marks.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Court examined the answer sheets of candidates who received below 15 marks and found no arbitrary variations.
• It noted that 95.76% of candidates received between 0 and 15 marks in the English Essay Paper, indicating a uniform marking standard.
• The judgment cited Sanjay Singh v. UP Public Services Commission (2007) and Pranav Verma v. High Court of P&H (2020), emphasizing that minor variations in marking are expected but do not necessarily indicate bias.
• The Court found no statistical discrepancy warranting intervention.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

• The petitions were dismissed, affirming the validity of the examination results.
• The Court ruled that the evaluation process did not suffer from any procedural infirmities.
• It granted liberty to individual candidates to approach the Rajasthan High Court for any specific grievances.
• The Secretary General of the Supreme Court was directed to return the answer sheets to the Rajasthan High Court.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant consequences for judicial examination processes:

• Upholding Exam Fairness: The Court reaffirmed that competitive exams must be free from judicial interference unless substantial irregularities are proven.
• Transparency in Evaluation: The judgment establishes that subjective evaluation, when conducted uniformly, does not warrant re-evaluation.
• Limiting Judicial Overreach: The decision discourages unwarranted litigation against exam bodies unless procedural violations are evident.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reinforces the principle that courts should not intervene in examination results unless there is clear evidence of bias or arbitrariness. By dismissing the plea for re-evaluation, the Court has upheld the integrity of the RJS examination process while providing room for individual grievances to be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-workman-definition-and-reinstatement-in-industrial-dispute-case/

Petitioner Name: Sonal Gupta & Ors..
Respondent Name: Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 24-10-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sonal-gupta-&-ors.-vs-registrar-general,-r-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-24-10-2024.pdf