TANIYA MALIK versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI on 16 February 2018

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

A

TANIYA MALIK

v.

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

B(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 764 of 2017)

FEBRUARY 16, 2018

[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]

C

CJudicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015– Revaluation of answer-sheet and moderation of marks – Petitionerssought re-valuation of the answer-sheet of criminal law paper ofthe main examination and further sought moderation of marksobtained by the candidates in the examination of 2015 – Held:Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Singh has laid down moderation toDbe appropriate where there are multiple examiners of the samesubject – Where number of candidates are limited and only oneexaminer evaluates, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformityin valuation – In instant case, it is not disputed that only oneexaminer had evaluated the same part of one subject, therefore, itEwas not necessary to undertake the process of moderation – Insofarrevaluation of answer scripts are concerned, it is a settledproposition of law that in the absence of provision for re-evaluation,it cannot be ordered – Accordingly, for the examination in question,in the absence of provision for revaluation when the examinationwas held, it could not be resorted to – Delhi Judicial Services Rules,F1970 – Constitution of India – Art.32.

Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015– Minimum marks for viva voice – Reasonability of – One of thepetitioners was awarded 37% marks; whereas the required minimumwas 45% in viva voce – Total 64 candidates were called for interviewGand 63 were selected – Only the said petitioner was declared failedin the viva voce examination – Petitioner contended that theprovision prescribing minimum marks for viva voce of judicialservices is unreasonable – Held: In instant case, out of 64

H

candidates, only one has failed in the interview – That, in fact,does not show the prejudice but is rather indicative of the fact thatperformance of the petitioner was such that in spite of the SelectionCommittee being most liberal, it did not find it appropriate to awardeven the minimum passing marks to the said candidate – Theawarding of marks by Committee could not be said to beinappropriate – Furthermore, in rules, the minimum cut off isprescribed – That could not have been relaxed and moreover,relaxation is a matter of policy and considering the overallcircumstances, importance of interview, the decision not to relaxcannot be said to be unreasonable.

Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015– Enhancement of marks by rounding off – Applicable or not – Asper advertisement, the candidates were required to obtain 50% marksin aggregate and 40% in each subject in the main examination tobe eligible to be called for interview – One of the petitioners hadobtained 49.9% marks and pleaded that it be rounded off to 50%and called for an interview – Held: When a particular aggregate isprescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria withoutrelaxation – It is not permissible to enhance the marks by roundingoff method to make up the minimum aggregate – Thus, the principleof rounding off method not to be applied in view of requirement toobtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for interview in theinstant case.

Judicial Service – Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015– Plea for reduction of minimum cut-off marks – As peradvertisement, the candidates were required to obtain 50% marksin aggregate and 40% in each subject in the main examination tobe eligible to be called for interview – One of the petitioners pleadedto reduce the minimum cut off marks of individual subjects from40% to 33% as she had failed only in one subject – Held: There isno fault in prescribing the minimum passing marks for written papers– It may happen in any examination that a person who is havingbetter aggregate may not fair well in one of the papers and may bedeclared ‘failed’ – That cannot be ground to order relaxation or todoubt the correctness of the evaluation process – No ground forinterference.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ADismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: Whether moderation is required to be ordered.

1.1 Moderation is an appropriate method to bring aboutuniformity in evaluation. When several examiners manuallyevaluate answer-scripts of respective/conventional type questionBpapers in regard to the same subject, moderation is adopted as amethod to reduce examiner’s variability. [Para 12] [358-A-B]

1.2 This Court in Sanjay Singh case has laid downmoderation to be appropriate where there are multiple examinersof the same subject. It has also been observed that where aCnumber of candidates are limited and only one examiner willevaluate, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity invaluation. That is only where several examiners evaluate the samesubject. There is difference in average marks and range of marksawarded. There is a ‘hawk-dove’ effect. Some examiners areDliberal and they award more marks; some examiners are strictand they give fewer marks, the same may be moderated. Theremay be variance in degree of strictness and liberality. It is inorder to remove the subjectivity or variability, that the provisionof moderation is adopted. It is not the situation in the instantcase, hence, the decision in Sanjay Singh case rather thanEbuttressing negates the plea of moderation urged on behalf ofthe petitioners. In the instant case as it is not disputed that onlyone examiner had evaluated the same part of the one subject. Itwas not necessary to undertake the process of moderation. [Paras13 and 14] [361-C-D; 362-E-F]FRevaluation of answer-scripts

2. It is settled proposition of law that in the absence ofprovision it cannot be ordered. In Mukesh Thakur case it waslaid down that in the absence of provision for re-evaluation itcannot be resorted to and the observations which were made inGthe case of CPIL v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi case,the decision was rendered in 2016 after the examination hadalready been held, thus the provision for re-evaluation could nothave been introduced after the examination had been held. Forexamination in question in the absence of provision for revaluation H

when the examination was held, it could not be resorted to.[Para 15] [362-F-G; 364-D-E]

Prescription of minimum pass marks in the viva voce examination 3.1 It is desirable to have the interview and it is necessaryto prescribe minimum passing marks for the same when theappointment in the higher judiciary to the post of District Judgeis involved. The interview is the best method of judging theperformance, overall personality and the actual workingknowledge and capacity to perform otherwise the standard ofjudiciary is likely to be compromised. A written examination onlytests academic knowledge, which is some time, gained withoutpossessing overall qualities, practical experience of practice andlaw. [Para 17] [367-G-H; 368-A]

3.2 It was urged that out of 64 candidates, only one hasfailed in the interview. That, in fact, does not show the prejudicebut is rather indicative of the fact that the performance of thepetitioner was such that in spite of the Committee being mostliberal, it did not find it appropriate to award even the minimumpassing marks to the said candidate. The awarding of marks bythe Committee could not be said to be inappropriate. In the instantcase in the rules, the minimum cut off is prescribed. That couldnot have been relaxed and moreover, relaxation is a matter ofpolicy and considering the overall circumstances, importance ofinterview, the decision not to relax cannot be said to beunreasonable. [Para 18] [368-G-H; 369-A-D]

K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. [2006] 2Suppl. SCR 790 : (2006) 6 SCC 395 – relied on.

Rounding off of the marks

5. When a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility,a person must meet the criteria without relaxation. It is notpermissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to makeup the minimum aggregate. Thus the principle of rounding offmethod could not be applied in view of requirement to obtainminimum aggregate marks to be called for interview in the instantcase. [Paras 20 and 22] [371-D; 373-D]

A

BC

DE

F

G

H

AWhether minimum cut off marks in the written examination berelaxed from 40% to 33% and whether the Court should interfereon the ground that as a person who has obtained the highestmarks, could not clear one of the papers by narrow margin of onemark.

B6. The minimum-passing marks in each of the paper couldhave been prescribed and that is absolutely necessary so as toadjudge the academic knowledge in various subjects. Merely byscoring highest marks in general knowledge and language paperis not going to help. Minimum knowledge in other subjects, civiland criminal law was also requisite and that is true for vice versaCtoo, and that is why minimum passing marks had been prescribedand fixation of 40% was quite reasonable and proper and it wouldbe not proper for this Court to interfere in the same. There is nono fault in prescribing the minimum passing marks for writtenpapers. It may happen in any examination that a person who isDhaving better aggregate may not fair well in one of the papersand may be declared ‘failed’. That cannot be a ground to orderrelaxation or to doubt the correctness of the evaluation process.The marks of a candidate who secured highest marks were shown,it became apparent that the performance of the candidate in papergeneral knowledge and language was far better as compared toEthe performance in civil and criminal papers. Thus when a singleexaminer, has done valuation, same yardstick has been appliedto all the candidates. There are no grounds to make interference.[Para 23] [373-F-G; 374-A-B]

Ajithkumar P. & Ors. v. Remin K.R. & Ors. (2015) 16FSCC 778 – held inapplicable.

Sujasha Mukherji v. The Hon’ble High Court ofCalcutta & Ors. [2015] 2 SCR 480 : (2015) 11 SCC395; Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v.Mukesh Thakur & Anr. [2010] 7 SCR 189 : (2010) 6GSCC 759; The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences, Bangalore v. G. Hemlatha and Ors.[2012] 8 SCR 157 : (2012) 8 SCC 568; Orissa PublicService Commission & Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdharyand Anr., [2011] 9 SCR 748 : (2011) 8 SCC 108 –referred to.H

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.764 of 2017

C

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India WITH

W. P. (C) No. 996, 896, 831, 832, 885, 938, 1046, 1063 and 1081

of 2017

D

W. P. (C) No. 39 of 2018.

R. S. Suri, R. Basant, Sanjay Hegde, Raju Ramachandran,Sr. Advs., Kulbir Singh Mallik, Sandiv Kalia, Ms. Nabila Hasan, LugmanS. Hasan (For Dr. Sushil Balwada), Nachiketa Joshi, Aviral Kashyap,Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Sanjay Jain,Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Percival Billowria, Vikram Singh, Ms. KimpokLoya, Rajeev Sharma, Deepak Goel, Kamal Kumar Pandey, PardeepGupta, Parinav Gupta, Ms. Mansi Gupta, Sanjauy Chakraborty, WazirSingh Malik (for Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta), Prashant Bhushan, Ms. NehaRathi, Pramit Saxena, Rahul Aggarwal, Amit Pratap Singh, Annam D.N. Rao, A. Venkatesh, Sudipto Sircar, Rahul Mishra, Ms. Tulika Chikker,Ishwar Mohanty, Advs. for the appearing parties.

E

F

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The writ petitions have been filed underArticle 32 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Delhi JudicialService, 2015 Examination for which an advertisement was issued on3.10.2015. 100 vacancies were advertised. The examination was to beheld in two stages – preliminary, thereafter, – main examination (written)for selection of candidates for viva voce. Out of the 100 posts advertised,68 were of the General Category; SC 12; ST 20; out of them 41, 7 and G

H

A17 were the backlog vacancies of respective categories. Two vacancieswere reserved for physically handicapped (blind/low vision) and twovacancies for physically handicapped candidates (Ortho.). Theappointments were to be subject to the outcome of W.P. (C) No. 514 of2015 and C.A. No.1086 of 2013 pending in this Court and W.P. (C) No.2828 of 2010 pending in the High Court of Delhi.B

2. In Writ Petition[C] No.764 of 2017 – Taniya Malik v.Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, prayer has been madeto reduce the minimum cut off marks of individual subjects from 40% to33% and in the alternative, the Delhi High Court be directed to relax thecriteria for calling for interview.C

3. Petitioner has urged that result of the main examination wasannounced on 12.7.2017. In the preliminary examination that was held,out of 8534 candidates, 914 cleared it and they appeared in the mainexamination. As per the advertisement, the candidates were required toobtain 50% marks in aggregate and 40% in each subject in the mainDexamination to be eligible to be called for interview. The result of themain examination was announced on 12.7.2017 and only 64 students, 58from general category and 6 from reserved category were selected forviva voce test. The petitioner contended that normally for an interview,three times the number of incumbents are to be called as compared toEthe number of seats notified as apparent from past practice. The petitionersubmitted a representation for rationalizing the minimum qualifying marksto 33% instead of 40%. However needful was not done.

4. In W.P.[C] No.832 of 2017 prayer has been made to direct re-evaluation of all the papers of the said examination by an independentFExpert Committee headed by a retired Judge of this Court. Alternativeprayer has been made to direct re-evaluation of the answer-sheet ofcriminal law paper of the main examination of the petitioner. Prayer hasalso been made to direct moderation of marks obtained by the candidatesin the Examination of 2015 in the light of the decision of this Court inSanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, AllahabadG& Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720, and to quash the criteria of calling for vivavoce for those candidates who had obtained 40% marks in each writtenpaper as provided under Rule 15 of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules,1970. It is averred that as only a minuscule number of 24 candidatescould obtain more than 50% marks in Criminal Law paper, prima facie H

it appears that Criminal Law paper has been very strictly marked andmarks given do not reflect the actual performance of the candidates.

5. In W.P. [C] No.996 of 2017 – Ms. Swati Gupta v. RegistrarGeneral, High Court of Delhi, a prayer has been made to quash theresult of the examination and prayer for revaluation of the papers hasbeen made. Petitioner has obtained 49.9% marks. She has prayed that itbe rounded off to 50% as is normally done and she should be called forinterview.

6. In WP [C] No.1081 of 2017 – Naveen v. Registrar General,High Court of Delhi, prayer has been made to set aside the result ofviva voce dated 25.9.2017 so far as the petitioner has been declared notqualified in viva voce test and to declare him qualified for selection onthe vacant post available in his reserved category or to conduct freshviva voce and the provision prescribing minimum marks for viva voce ofjudicial services is unreasonable. Petitioner has been awarded 37%marks; whereas the required minimum was 45% marks in viva voce.Total 64 candidates were called for interview as against 100 vacanciesthat were advertised and 63 have been selected. Only the petitioner hadbeen declared failed in the viva voce examination. The High Court shouldhave relaxed the marks for interview. In rest of petitions, the relief prayedis more or less similar to aforesaid writ petitions.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar General of HighCourt Delhi, it is contended that after participating in the process ofselection under the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (for short, ‘the1970 Rules’), it is not open to question the process of the examination.The preliminary examination is a screening test carrying maximum marksof 200. Minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary examination were60% for general and 55 for reserved categories. The main examination(written) consisted of 4 papers, namely, G.K. & Language, Civil Law-I,Civil Law-II and Criminal Law and carried a weightage of 250, 200, 200and 200 marks respectively. Each paper is divided into two parts, viz.,Part A and Part B. A separate individual examiner examined each partof all the papers. There were no multiple examiners for each part.It wasnecessary to obtain minimum 40% marks and 35% marks respectivelyin each of the four papers; total of Part A and Part B, and also secure atleast 50% marks and 45% marks respectively in aggregate in all thefour papers in order to qualify for the next stage i.e. viva voce.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A8. It is further pleaded that calling the number of candidates woulddepend upon the number of qualified candidates in the writtenexamination. Unqualified candidates could not have been called forinterview. Senior-most officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Serviceswere responsible for setting up of the examination papers and evaluatingthe answer-sheets. As a separate individual examiner did the evaluation,Bthe question of moderation/rationalization as demanded by the petitionersdid not arise. The practice adopted for evaluation of answer sheet is thatthe roll number is kept secret from the examiner. A code number iswritten on both sides of the first page of answer-sheet. Copies of answer-sheets were supplied to the petitioner after the declaration of the result.CIn CPIL v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi in W.P. [C]No.514 of 2015, the suggestions given by this Court were to be kept inview for future examinations. The order was passed on 26.7.2016 muchafter the main examination had been held. The modalities of theexamination had been worked out much before the decision of this Courtin the said matter. Thus, it was not possible to implement the said decision.DThere is no procedure or provision for revaluation of answer-sheets inthe said examination held for 2015 vacancies under the 1970 Rules. Nomodel answers were provided to the examiners.

9. In the case of Naveen v. Registrar General, High Court ofDelhi, W.P. [C] No.1081 of 2017 it is the stand taken that viva voceEcarries 150 marks; candidates in General Category must secure 50%marks and candidates of Reserved Category must secure 45% marks tobe eligible for recommendation for appointment to the service. The marksobtained in the viva voce were to be added to the marks obtained in themain examination to determine the merit position of the successfulFcandidates. The petitioner secured only 55 marks out of 150 marks, i.e.37%, hence, was not eligible for being recommended for appointment tothe service. Even though all the vacancies could not be filled, it does notimply that the cut off of 45% marks fixed for interview should be removed.Fixation of cut off marks could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Viva-voce plays an important role in judging candidates’ caliber/personality,Gperception and suitability.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that fixationof 40% cut off marks in written paper was not appropriate. Even thecandidate who has secured the highest marks could not obtain the requisiteminimum marks in one of the papers and missed by a whisker i.e. byH

one mark. There was an unduly harsh marking of criminal law paper.Only a few candidates could obtain more than 50% marks. It does notsound to logic that the candidate who has obtained highest marks inaggregate, would fail in one of the papers, thus the case is fit for directingthe moderation as held in Sanjay Singh (supra) and Ajithkumar P. &Ors. v. Remin K.R. & Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 778. Reliance has also beenplaced on the decision in Sujasha Mukherji v. The Hon’ble High Courtof Calcutta & Ors. (2015) 11 SCC 395. Prayer has also been made toreduce the cut off in written papers to 33% from 40%. In the case ofSwati Gupta (supra), additional ground has been urged to round off themarks from 49.9% to 50% to make her eligible for viva voce. In thecase of WP [C] No.832/2017 – Charu Dhankar v. Registrar Generalof the High Court of Delhi, in addition, it was urged that revaluation ofanswer-sheets of criminal law paper be ordered and the requirement ofobtaining 40% marks be set aside. In the case of Naveen v. RegistrarGeneral, High Court of Delhi, a prayer has been made not to fix theminimum marks for viva voce. It was urged that fixation of minimumpassing marks in interview was unreasonable and alternative prayer hasbeen made to relax the minimum passing marks for the SC categorycandidates for selection. It was urged that petitioner was the only personwho has failed in the interview. Out of 64 candidates, 63 had been clearedin interview.

11. Per contra, it was contended on behalf of the High Court ofDelhi that in case of Sanjay Singh (supra), there were multiple examinersas such moderation was ordered. In case where a single examiner hasexamined all the papers, moderation is not at all required. Minimum passmarks have been fixed considering the importance of the Higher JudicialService and as the appointment was to be made on the post of HigherJudicial Service. Minimum marks for interview were also rightlyprescribed. In the written examination it was necessary to obtain aggregateof 50% for General Category, thus there was no question of roundingoff. A candidate who obtains lesser marks than the minimum prescribedfor aggregate could not have been called for interview by the process ofrounding off. Lower marks were prescribed for reserved categorycandidates as compared to General Category candidates. For GeneralCategory, passing marks in interview were 50% whereas passing marksfor reserved category candidates were 45%.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A12. First we take up the question whether moderation is requiredto be ordered. Moderation is an appropriate method to bring aboutuniformity in evaluation. When several examiners manually evaluateanswer-scripts of respective/conventional type question papers in regardto the same subject, moderation is adopted as a method to reduceexaminer’s variability. For the purpose of issuance of direction forBmoderation reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court inSanjay Singh (supra) in which, it was observed:

“23. When a large number of candidates appear for anexamination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency invaluation of the answer- scripts. Where the number of candidatestaking the examination are limited and only one examiner(preferably the paper-setter himself) evaluates the answer-scripts,it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation.But where a large number of candidates take the examination, itwill not be possible to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by thesame examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute theanswer-scripts among several examiners for valuation with thepaper-setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head Examiner.When more than one examiner evaluate the answer-scripts relatingto a subject, the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creepinto the marks awarded by him to the answer- scripts allotted tohim for valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick toassess the answer-scripts. Inevitably therefore, even whenexperienced examiners receive equal batches of answer scripts,there is difference in average marks and the range of marksawarded, thereby affecting the merit of individual candidates. Thisapart, there is ‘Hawk-Dove’ effect. Some examiners are liberalin valuation and tend to award more marks. Some examiners arestrict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate andbalanced in awarding marks. Even among those who are liberalor those who are strict, there may be variance in the degree ofstrictness or liberality. This means that if the same answer-scriptis given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of differentmarks being assigned. If a very well written answer-script goesto a strict examiner and a mediocre answer-script goes to a liberalexaminer, the mediocre answer-script may be awarded moremarks than the excellent answer-script. In other words, there is C

D

E

F

G

H

‘reduced valuation’ by a strict examiner and ‘enhanced valuation’by a liberal examiner. This is known as ‘examiner variability’ or‘Hawk-Dove effect’. Therefore, there is a need to evolve aprocedure to ensure uniformity interse the Examiners so that theeffect of ‘examiner subjectivity’ or ‘examiner variability’ isminimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivityor variability is known as moderation. The classic method ofmoderation is as follows:

(i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the HeadExaminer for the subject. He is selected from amongst senioracademicians/scholars/senior civil servants/Judges. Where thecase of a large number of candidates, more than one examiner isappointed and each of them is allotted around 300 answer-scriptsfor valuation.

(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than oneexaminer is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all theexaminers is held soon after the examination. They discussthoroughly the question paper, the possible answers and theweightage to be given to various aspects of the answers. Theyalso carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions.The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed bythe Head Examiner and variations in assigning marks are furtherdiscussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at inregard to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, theexaminers are required to complete the valuation of answer scripts.But this by itself does not bring about uniformity of assessmentinter se the examiners. In spite of the norms agreed, manyexaminers tend to deviate from the expected or agreed norms, astheir caution is overtaken by their propensity for strictness orliberality or eroticism or carelessness during the course of valuation.Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary.

(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the HeadExaminer conducts a random sample survey of the correctedanswer scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetingsof examiner have actually been followed by the examiners. Theprocess of random sampling usually consists of scrutiny of sometop-level answer scripts and some answer books selected at random AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

from the batches of answer scripts valued by each examiner. Thetop-level answer books of each examiner are revalued by theHead Examiner who carries out such corrections or alterations inthe award of marks as he, in his judgment, considers best, toachieve uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary certain statisticslike distribution of candidates in various marks ranges, the averagepercentage of marks, the highest and lowest award of marks etc.may also be prepared in respect of the valuation of each examiner.)

(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by eachexaminer, the Head Examiner may confirm the award of markswithout any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms,or suggest upward or downward moderation, the quantum ofmoderation varying according to the degree of liberality or strictnessin marking. In regard to the top level answer books revalued bythe Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted as final. Asregards the other answer books below the top level, to achievemaximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the awardsare moderated as per the recommendations made by the HeadExaminer.

(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erraticor careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasibleto have any standard moderation, the answer scripts valued bysuch examiner are revalued either by the Head Examiner or anyother Examiner who is found to have followed the agreed norms.

(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and theexaminers are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examinerto assess the work of all the Examiners. In such a situation, onemore level of Examiners is introduced. For every ten or twentyexaminers, there will be a Head Examiner who checks the randomsamples as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, ischecked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper results.

The above procedure of ‘moderation’ would bring in considerableuniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absoluteuniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve wherethere are several examiners and the effort is only to achievemaximum uniformity.

27. But some Examining Authorities, like the Commission, are ofthe view that scaling can be used, not only where there is a needto find a common base across different subjects (that is bringingthe performance in different subjects to a common scale), butalso as an alternative to moderation, to reduce examiner variability(that is where different examiners evaluate answer scripts relatingto the same subject).”

13. This Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) has laid down moderationto be appropriate where there are multiple examiners of the same subject.It has also been observed that where a number of candidates are limitedand only one examiner will evaluate, it is to be assumed that there will beuniformity in valuation. That is only where several examiners evaluatethe same subject. There is difference in average marks and range ofmarks awarded. There is a ‘hawk-dove’ effect. Some examiners areliberal and they award more marks; some examiners are strict and theygive fewer marks, the same may be moderated. There may be variancein degree of strictness and liberality. It is in order to remove thesubjectivity or variability, that the provision of moderation is adopted. Itis not the situation in the instant case, hence, the decision in SanjaySingh (supra) rather than buttressing negates the plea of moderationurged on behalf of the petitioners.

14. In relation to plea of moderation, reliance has also been placedon the decision of this Court in Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court ofCalcutta through Registrar & Ors. (2015) 11 SCC 395. In the saidcase there were three examiners i.e. multiple examiners and moderationhad not been adopted. Only re-assessment was carried out. The propermode of moderation was not followed as observed in Sanjay Singh(supra). Mean marks were not computed to liquidate ‘hawk-dove’syndrome. Marks awarded by the first examiner were more or lessunchanged as compared to other. In the said context, this Court inSujasha Mukherjee (supra) has observed:

“11. Revaluation as envisaged in the paragraph 23 of Sanjay Singhv. U.P. Public Service Commission (2007) 3 SCC 720 has to beundertaken by the Head Examiner/Paper Setter who, as hasalready been noted, is non-existent in the present case. The effortwould be to eradicate the ‘hawk-dove’ syndrome, and this isachieved by computing the ‘mean’ and, thereafter, to add or deduct, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aacross the board, in all the Answer-sheets. It cannot be disputedthat this is not what has transpired in the present case since quiteapparently moderation has been carried out in respect of theassessment/marking of the 2nd Examiner and that too in PaperNo. II. So far as most of the candidates whose answer scriptshad been reassessed afresh, the reduction averages 10 marksBwhich, therefore, constitutes the mean. Therefore, the deductionof as many as 18 marks so far as the Appellant is concerned isnot logical or justified as a consequence of moderation. We alsothink that a moderator should give a long and serious thought tothe correctness of his assessment on the realization he finds thatCthe top-most candidate stands disqualified by the purportedexercise of moderation. As we have already noted above, insteadof deducting 18 marks if even 15 marks had been deducted, theAppellant who has scored the highest marks before moderationand the second highest marks even after moderation, would havequalified for being called to the Interview/viva voce. A graveDinjustice has been caused to the Appellant. The learned DivisionBench should have been alive to this injustice since it had beforeit the judicial determination of the learned Single Judge. We shallabjure from making any further observation.”

It is apparent that in Sujasha Mukherjee (supra) the method ofEmoderation as envisaged in Sanjay Singh (supra) was not followed. Assuch this Court interfered. However, in the instant case as it is not disputedthat only one examiner had evaluated the same part of the one subject.In our considered opinion it was not necessary to undertake the processof moderation.

F

15. Now we take up the second submission with respect torevaluation of answer-scripts. It is settled proposition of law that in theabsence of provision it cannot be ordered. In Himachal Pradesh PublicService Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 759,this Court has considered various decisions and observed:

G

“24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra.This issue was considered at length by this Court in MaharashtraState Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education andAnr. v. ParitoshBhupeshKurmarsheth wherein this Court rejectedthe contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a H

direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Courtfurther held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluationcannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that thepolicy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Courtheld as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16)

“14. ...It is exclusively within the province of the legislatureand its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how theprovisions of the Statute can best be implemented and whatmeasures, substantive as well as procedural would have to beincorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficaciousachievement of the objects and purposes of the Act...

X xxxx

16. ...The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of thepolicy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuatethe purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking ineffectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement.But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule orregulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannotstrike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wiseor prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will notreally serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. “

25. This view has been approved and relied upon and re-iteratedby this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public ServiceCommission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 observing as under: (SCC pp.717-18, para 7)

“7. ….Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is noprovision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutinyonly wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose ofchecking whether all the answers given by a candidate havebeen examined and whether there has been any mistake in thetotaling of marks of each question and noting them correctlyon the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no disputethat after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awardedto the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in therelevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any rightwhatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.”

(emphasis added)

A similar view has been reiterated in Dr. Muneeb-Ul-RehmanBHaroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State (1984)4 SCC 24; Board ofSecondary Education v. PravasRanjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383;Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar (2007) 1 SCC 603;W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das(2007)8 SCC242; and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of HealthSciences (2009) 1 SCC 599.

C

26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that inabsence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.”

In Mukesh Thakur (supra) it was laid down that in the absenceDof provision for re-evaluation it cannot be resorted to and the observationswhich were made in the case of CPIL v. Registrar General of HighCourt of Delhi (supra), the decision was rendered in 2016 after theexamination had already been held, thus the provision for re-evaluationcould not have been introduced after the examination had been held. Inour opinion, for examination in question in the absence of provision forErevaluation when the examination was held, it could not be resorted to.

16. Coming to the question of prescribing the minimum pass marksin the viva voce examination, in our opinion it is rightly observed by thisCourt in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC395, that interview is the best method to assess the ability of the candidateFand to judge the capacity and minimum marks can also be prescribed. Incase a candidate fails in an interview it cannot be said that he is suitablefor the job of a Munsif Magistrate. This Court observed:

“54. In our opinion, the interview is the best mode of assessingthe suitability of a candidate for a particular position. While theGwritten examination will testify the candidates’ academicknowledge, the oral test alone can bring out or disclose his overallintellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness,dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions,qualities of leadership etc. which are also essential for a judicialofficer.

H

55. We may usefully refer to a decision of this Court in Lila Dharv. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159 in which this Courtobserved as under:

“The object of any process of selection for entry into apublic service is to secure the best and the most suitableperson for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism.Selection based on merit tested impartially and objectively,is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient publicservice. So, open competitive examination has come to beaccepted almost universally as the gateway to publicservices.

‘The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness.’(SCC pp. 162-63, para 4)

* * *

‘A system of recruitment almost totally dependent onassessment of a person’s academic knowledge and skills,as distinct from ability to deal with pressing problems ofeconomic and social development, with people, and withnovel situations cannot serve the needs of today, much lessof tomorrow...We venture to suggest that out recruitmentprocedures should be such that we can select candidateswho cannot only assimilate knowledge and sift material tounderstand the ramifications of a situation or a problem buthave the potential to develop an original or innovativeapproach to the solution of problems.’

It is now well recognised that while a written examination assessesa candidate’s knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview testis valuable to assess a candidate’s overall intellectual and personalqualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantageover the interview-test there are yet no written tests which canevaluate a candidate’s initiative, alertness, resourcefulness,dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logicalpresentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meetingand dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to makedecision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. (SCC p.163,para5)

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

***

‘While we do feel that the marks allotted for interview are onthe high side and it may be appropriate for the Government tore-examine the question, we are unable to uphold the contentionthat it was not within the power of the Government to providesuch high marks for interview or that there was any arbitraryexercise of power. (SCC p.166, para 9)”

56. In Mohan Kumar Singhania and Ors. v. Union of India andOrs. : AIR 1992 SC 1, S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. speaking for theBench, observed as under: (SCC p.608, paras 18-21)

“18. Hermar Finer in his textbook under the caption TheTheory and Practice of Modern government states:

‘The problem of selection for character is still the ponsasinorum of recruitment to the public services everywhere.The British Civil Service experiments with the interview.’

19. The purpose of viva voce test for the ICS Examinationin 1935 could be best understood from the following extractof the Civil Service Commission’s pamphlet:

‘Viva Voce - the examination will be in matters of generalinterest: it is intended to test the candidate’s alertness,intelligence, and intellectual outlook. The candidate will beaccorded an opportunity of furnishing the record of his lifeand education.’

20. It is apposite, in this connection, to have reference to anexcerpt from the United Nations Handbook on CivilService Laws and Practice, which reads thus:

“...the written papers permit an assessment of cultureand intellectual competence. This interview permits anassessment of qualities of character which written papersignore; it attempts to assess the man himself and not hisintellectual abilities.”

21. This Court in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4SCC 159 while expressing the view about the importanceand significance of the two tests, namely, the written andinterview has observed thus: (SCC p.164, para 6)

‘...the written examination assess the man’s intellectand the interview test the man himself and ‘the twain shallmeet’ for a proper selection.’ “

57. The qualities which a Judicial Officer would possessare delineated by this Court in Delhi Bar Association v.Union of India (2002) 10 SCC 159. A Judicial Officermust, apart from academic knowledge, have the capacityto communicate his thoughts, he must be tactful, he mustbe diplomatic, he must have a sense of humour, he musthave the ability to defuse situations, to control the examinationof witnesses and also lengthy irrelevant arguments and thelike. Existence of such capacities can be brought out onlyin an oral interview. It is imperative that only persons witha minimum of such capacities should be selected for thejudiciary as otherwise, the standards would get diluted andsubstandard stuff may be getting into the judiciary.Acceptance of the contention of the appellants/petitionerscan even lead to a postulate that a candidate who scoreshigh in the written examination but is totally inadequate forthe job as evident from the oral interview and gets 0 marksmay still find it a place in the judiciary. It will spell disasterto the standards to be maintained by the subordinatejudiciary. It is, therefore, the High Court has set a benchmarkfor the oral interview, a benchmark which is actually lowas it requires 30% for a pass. The total marks for theinterview are only 50 out of a total of 450. The prescriptionis, therefore, kept to the bare minimum and if a candidatefails to secure even this bare minimum, it cannot bepostulated that he is suitable for the job of Munsif Magistrate,as assessed by five experienced Judges of the High Court.”

17. In our considered opinion, it is desirable to have the interviewand it is necessary to prescribe minimum passing marks for the samewhen the appointment in the higher judiciary to the post of District Judgeis involved. The interview is the best method of judging the performance,overall personality and the actual working knowledge and capacity toperform otherwise the standard of judiciary is likely to be compromised.A written examination only tests academic knowledge, which is sometime, gained without possessing overall qualities, practical experience of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apractice and law. In written exam, even the person with no caliber whotakes decision by cramming may obtain better marks. When the Judgesof the High Court too are appointed by adjudging the performance andintellect, an interview would be indispensable for judicial post. Asultimately, they also come to adorn the chair of a Judge and Judges ofsubordinate and higher judiciary to deliver justice to masses, the criteriaBof experience of practice for direct recruitment of 7 years whetheractually gained can be adjudged only by interview, communicating skillsand by elucidation of certain aspects which would not be possible bywritten exam alone. In Siraj (supra), it was emphasized that interviewis the main fulcrum for judging the suitability of the candidate forCappointment as District Judge in the higher judiciary. In our opinion thatis absolutely necessary. When we consider past practice earlier whenthe written examination was not prescribed, the High Court used to selectthe candidates for higher judiciary only by the method of interview. Nowadditional safeguards of written examination have been added. Theimportance of interview for the post of the higher judiciary has increasedDthan ever before it is absolutely necessary to weed out unworthy elements/crammers and in our considered opinion it is not only appropriate butalso absolutely necessary to prescribe the minimum pass marks so as toweed out unworthy element so as to segregate grain from the chaff.There is a vast difference between having the experience that is requiredEfor a Judge that cannot solely be adjudged on the basis of writtenperformance, and for which overall personality, intelligence test isabsolutely necessary. Without that it would not be appropriate to makeappointments in judiciary. Thus in our opinion the prescription of minimum45% marks for reserved category candidates could not be said to beuncalled for. Merely by the fact that some more posts were advertisedFand they are lying vacant, it could not have been a ground to relax theminimum marks for interview after the interview has already been held.It would not have been appropriate to do so and the High Court hasobjected to relaxation of minimum passing marks in viva voce examinationin its reply and as the power to relax is to be exercised by the High CourtGand since it has opposed such a prayer on reasonable ground and theinstitutional objective behind such prescription, we are not inclined todirect the High Court to relax the minimum marks.

18. It was urged that out of 64 candidates, only one has failed inthe interview. That, in fact, does not show the prejudice but is ratherH

indicative of the fact that the performance of the petitioner was suchthat in spite of the Committee being most liberal, it did not find itappropriate to award even the minimum passing marks to the saidcandidate. In our opinion, the awarding of marks by the Committee couldnot be said to be inappropriate. No malice has been attributed; as suchwe find no scope for interference on the aforesaid ground. Reliance hasbeen placed on Ajithkumar (supra) in which the Commission has relaxedthe criteria to call various reserved category candidates who securedmarks out of the cut off marks. This Court has observed that challengeto the decision of the Service Commission to relax cut off marks withrespect to reserved category candidates could not succeed in the earlierround of litigation. There was relaxation of cut off marks for reservedcategory candidates in the preliminary examination not governed by rules.In the instant case in the rules, the minimum cut off is prescribed. Thatcould not have been relaxed and moreover, relaxation is a matter ofpolicy and considering the overall circumstances, importance of interview,the decision not to relax cannot be said to be unreasonable. The decisionhas no application.

19. Even otherwise the petitioners have undertaken the exam withthe stipulation of minimum cut off marks in written and oral examinationand then having failed, they cannot turn round and are estopped to contendto the contrary. This Court in K. Siraj (supra) has observed that whenthe candidates participated in the interview with the knowledge that forselection they have to clear the prescribed minimum pass marks, onbeing unsuccessful in interview, could not turn around and challenge thatthe prescription of minimum marks was improper. They are estopped tocontend it as observed in K.H. Siraj (supra) thus:

“72. The appellants/petitioners, in any event, are not entitled toany relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for morereasons than one. They had participated in the written test and inthe oral test without raising any objection. They knew well fromthe High Court’s Notification that a minimum marks had to besecured both at the written test and in the oral test. They werealso aware of the High Court decision on the judicial side reportedin Remany v. High Court of Kerala 1996 (2) KLT 439. This casedeals with prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 30% forviva voce test. C.S. Rajan, J., in the above judgment, observed asunder: (KLT pp.441-42, para 5)

AB

CD

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

“....On the basis of the aggregate marks in both the tests, theselection has to be made. In I.C.A.R’s case, also the relevantrules did not enable the selection Board to prescribe minimumqualifying marks to be obtained by the candidate at the viva vocetest. In the Delhi Judicial Service’s case (1985) 3 SCC 721 alsoUmesh Chandra (1985) 3 SCC 721, the rules did not empowerthe committee to exclude candidates securing less than 600 marksin the aggregate. Therefore, in all these cases, the Supreme Courtcame to the conclusion that prescription of separate minimummarks for viva voce test is bad in law because, under the rules, nominimum qualifying marks were prescribed.

The High Court also relied on P.K. Ramachandra Iyer’s case(1984) 2 SCC 141 and Umesh Chandra’s case (Supra).

73. The appellants/petitioners having participated in the interviewin this background, it is not open to the appellants/petitioners toturn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contendthat the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was notproper. It was so held by this Court in paragraph 9 of Madan Laland Ors. v. State of J & K [1995] 3 SCC 486 as under: (SCCp.493)

“9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in viewthe salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contestingsuccessful candidates being respondents concerned herein,were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in thewritten test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up tothis stage, there is no dispute between the parties. ThePetitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted bythe Members concerned of the Commission who interviewedthe petitions as well as the contesting respondents concerned.Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selectedat the said oral interview. Only because they did not findthemselves to have emerged successful as a result of theircombined performance both at written test and oral interview,they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if acandidate takes a calculated chance and appears at theinterview, then, only because the result of the interview is notpalatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contendthat the process of interview was unfair or the Selection

Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of OmPrakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC285, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learnedJudges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at theexamination without protect and when he found that he wouldnot succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging thesaid examination, the High Court should not have granted anyrelief to such a petitioner.”

74. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the appellants/petitionersshould be dismissed on the ground of estoppel is correct in viewof the above ruling of this Court. The decision of the High Courtholding to the contrary is in per incuriam without reference to theaforesaid decisions.”

20. With regard to question as to rounding off of the marks, in ouropinion, when a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a personmust meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhancethe marks by rounding off method to make up the minimum aggregate.

21. This Court, in The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences, Bangalore vs. G. Hemlatha and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC568, held as impermissible the rounding-off of eligibility criteria in relationto qualifying examination for admission to the PG Course in MSc(Nursing). Relying upon the decision rendered in Orissa Public ServiceCommission & Anr. vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr., (2011) 8SCC 108, this Court observed:

“8. In Orissa Public Service Commission and Anr. v.Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 108 this Court insomewhat similar fact situation considered whether the eligibilitycriteria could be relaxed by the method of rounding-off.The OrissaPublic Service Commission published an advertisement invitingapplications from suitable candidates for the Orissa JudicialService Examination, 2009 for direct recruitment to fill-up 77 postsof Civil Judges (JD). Pursuant to the advertisement, the firstRespondent therein applied for the said post. She took thepreliminary written examination. She was successful in the saidexamination. She, then, took the main written examination. Thelist of successful candidates, who were eligible for interview, waspublished in which the first Respondent’s name was not there.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

She received the mark sheet. She realized that she had secured337 marks out of 750 i.e. 44.93% of marks in the aggregate andmore than 33% of marks in each subject.

9. As per Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service andOrissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short “the Orissa Rules”),the candidates who have secured not less than 45% of the marksin the aggregate and not less than a minimum of 33% of marks ineach paper in the written examination should be called for vivavoce test. Since the first Respondent therein had secured 44.93%marks in aggregate she was not called for interview/viva voce.The first Respondent approached the Orissa High Court. TheHigh Court allowed the writ petition. The appeal from the saidorder was carried to this Court.

10. After considering the Orissa Rules, this Court in RupashreeChowdhary case (2011) 8 SCC 108 held that Rule 24 thereofmade it clear that “in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate hasto obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers andnot less than 45% marks in the aggregate in all the writtenpapers in the main examination.” (SCC p. 111, para 10)

This Court observed that when emphasis is given in the ruleitself to the minimum marks to be obtained, there can be norelaxation or rounding-off. It was observed that no power wasprovided in the statute/rules permitting any such rounding-off orgiving grace marks. It was clarified that: (SCC p. 112, para 10)

“10…. The [Orissa] Rules are statutory in nature and no dilutionor amendment to such rules is permissible or possible by addingsome words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit ofrounding-off or relaxation.”

11. In our opinion, the ratio of this judgment is clearly applicableto the facts of this case. Judgment of the Full Bench of AllahabadHigh Court in Vani Pati Tripathi v. Director General, MedicalEducation and Training and Ors. AIR 2003 All 164 and judgmentof the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in KuldipSingh, Legal Assistant, Punjab Financial Corporation v. TheState of Punjab and Ors. (1997) 117 PLR 1, were cited before us because they take the same view. However, in view of theauthoritative pronouncement of this Court in Orissa Public ServiceCommission (supra), it is not necessary for us to discuss the saiddecisions.

12. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunderhas been shown to us, which permits rounding-off of eligibilitycriteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission tothe PG course in M.SC (Nursing). When eligibility criteria isprescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adheredto. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on othercandidates. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holdingthat learned Single Judge was right in rounding-off of 54.71% to55% so as to make Respondent 1 eligible for admission to PGcourse. Such rounding-off is impermissible.”

22. Thus the principle of rounding off method could not be appliedin view of requirement to obtain minimum aggregate marks to be calledfor interview in the instant case.

23. Coming to question whether minimum cut off marks in thewritten examination be relaxed from 40% to 33% and whether we shouldinterfere on the ground that as a person who has obtained the highestmarks, could not clear one of the papers by narrow margin of one mark.It was also urged that the person having the highest marks has not beencalled for interview and as he could not clear the minimum percentagein one of the written paper and persons having lesser marks in aggregatehave been called for interview. In our opinion minimum-passing marksin each of the paper could have been prescribed and that is absolutelynecessary so as to adjudge the academic knowledge in various subjects.Merely by scoring highest marks in general knowledge and languagepaper is not going to help. Minimum knowledge in other subjects, civiland criminal law was also requisite and that is true for vice versa too,and that is why minimum passing marks had been prescribed and fixationof 40% was quite reasonable and proper and it would be not proper forthis Court to interfere in the same. We find no fault in prescribing theminimum passing marks for written papers. It may happen in anyexamination that a person who is having better aggregate may not fairwell in one of the papers and may be declared ‘failed’. That cannot be aground to order relaxation or to doubt the correctness of the evaluation A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aprocess. When we were shown the marks of a candidate who securedhighest marks, it became apparent that the performance of the candidatein paper general knowledge and language was far better as compared tothe performance in civil and criminal papers. Thus when a single examiner,has done valuation, same yardstick has been applied to all the candidates.We find no ground to interfere on the various grounds urged by theBpetitioners.

24. We place on record as pointed out by learned counsel onbehalf of the High Court of Delhi that suggestions made by this Court inthe decision rendered in CPIL (supra) have been carried out for subsequentexaminations for 2016.C

25. Resultantly, we find no ground to make interference. The writpetitions being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed. No costs.

D

Ankit Gyan

Writ Petitions dismissed.

E

F

G

H