Precedents Cited

The judgment discusses the precedents in two significant contexts:

• Mukul Dhankhar Vs. State of Haryana and others: This case was cited to illustrate instances where the Court refrained from interfering in the evaluator’s discretion concerning descriptive answers. However, the factual differences between that case and the current matter were carefully highlighted, particularly the nature of the response required.
• Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) 2 SCC 309: Both decisions were utilized to support the non-interference principle in matters involving subjective evaluations. While these cases underscored deference to evaluative discretion, the Court in the present matter distinguished the issue by pointing out that the petitioner’s answer was objectively correct and identical to those of other candidates, thereby making the denial of marks unsustainable.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning pivoted on two primary considerations:

• Equality and Fairness in Marking: The core of the petition rested on the premise that, if similar answers by other candidates were awarded marks, then fair and consistent treatment required the petitioner’s answer to also be credited. The evaluation should not be arbitrary, particularly when the mistake alleged – a cutting error – did not detract from the correctness of the answer.
• Differentiation from Previous Precedents: While previous rulings emphasized the Court’s limited role in interfering with evaluative discretion especially in descriptive responses, the present case was different due to the objective nature of the correction question in the English Language examination. The Court recognized that the uniformity in awarding marks to similar responses necessitated rectifying the error in evaluation.

Thus, balancing administrative discretion with the principle of fairness, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and directed that the marks be awarded, ultimately paving the way for her appointment as Civil Judge (Jr. Div.).

Impact

The decision sets an important precedent in administrative and examination law:

• Enhanced Accountability: Public service commissions must ensure that evaluative processes are conducted with utmost fairness and consistency. This ruling reinforces the need to avoid arbitrary decisions when objective correctness is at issue.
• Judicial Oversight in Evaluation: Although traditionally, courts have exercised restraint in matters concerning subjective grading, this case demonstrates that judicial intervention is possible where clear inconsistencies or unfair practices are evident.
• Guidance for Future Cases: Future examination disputes involving minor procedural errors yet objective correctness might draw on this precedent. It signals that where administrative errors lead to wrongful penalization, remedial measures—including adjustments in scoring—are warranted.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts in the judgment are clarified below:

• Evaluator’s Discretion vs. Judicial Review: Evaluators are generally given wide latitude in marking, especially in subjective assessments. However, if there is a demonstrable discrepancy—such as awarding marks to one candidate for the same answer while withholding them from another—judicial review can be justified.
• Re-evaluation vs. Re-checking: The advertisement specified that answer sheets are not to be re-evaluated but may be re-checked for errors in totaling or oversight. The distinction is key; “re-checking” pertains merely to arithmetic or clerical mistakes while re-evaluation would involve reassessing the substantive answer content.
• Aggregate Marking and Eligibility Criteria: The rules laid out in the advertisement require candidates to secure a minimum aggregate score (50% or 45% for certain categories) combining both the written examination and the viva-voce, emphasizing a balanced evaluation across components.