PRANAV VERMA & OTHERSversusTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.

                        [2019] 15 S.C.R. 43                             43


                  PRANAV VERMA & OTHERS                                 A
                                 v.
    THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF
     PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.
               (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2019)                  B
                       DECEMBER 13, 2019
  [S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
      Service Law: Selection – Interference with selection process
— Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge wherein total 1195
                                                                        C
candidates appeared and only 9 cleared the exam – Unsuccessful
candidates challenging the entire selection process and evaluation
method adopted therein and sought quashing of the result and re-
evaluation by independent expert Committee – Held: No
discriminatory or malafide practice was undertaken while
conducting the exam or its following processes – Officials of the       D
High Court ensured adequate security measures – Procedure of
evaluation was ‘uniform’ – Every candidate’s answers were marked
on same parameters by the same examiner – There was no examiner
variability but marking and evaluation method was strict but it was
so for everyone, thus, the option of moderation is applied –
                                                                        E
Alternative II of the Report by Justice Sikri is adopted, awarding
20 marks in Civil Law I and 10 marks in Civil law II – Prayer for re-
evaluation by an Independent Expert Committee cannot be accepted
– Also petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main Exam should be
disclosed before conducting viva-voce, cannot be accepted since
that would invite bias or favourtism affecting the impartial            F
evaluation of a candidate in viva-voce – Thus, respondents directed
to award 20 grace marks in Civil Law-I paper and 10 grace marks
in Civil Law-II paper to all the candidates – Issuance of direction
to prepare fresh results of the Main (Written) Examination of Civil
Judge and complete the selection process within the stipulated
                                                                        G
period – Constitution of India – Art. 32 - Judicial service.
      Partly allowing the Writ Petitions, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, Justice Sikri critically
examined the selection process as well as the evaluation method
                                                                        H
                                 43
44            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A    and it is explicit from his report that the procedure of evaluation
     was ‘uniform’. 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
B
     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
C    knowledge of candidates but also to evaluate their analytical
     ability. In the instant case, there was no Examiner Variability,
     therefore, Justice Sikri 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
D
     examiner’s mind, for which there are adequate remedies.
     [Para 14][60-G-H; 61-A-C]
            1.2 The marking criteria and evaluation method was strict
     but it was so for everyone. This was may be for the reason that
     one Evaluator checked one answer in each script and in this
E    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
F    candidates who covered all aspects briefly were not awarded
     proper marks. 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. [Para 15][61-D-E]
G          1.3 It has been found as a matter of fact that the officials of
     the High Court ensured adequate security measures such as
     keeping the answer scripts in iron boxes under round–the–clock
     security and CCTV cameras. Hence, it is just and fair to hold that
     no discriminatory or malafide practice was undertaken while

H
  PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                   45
     COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

conducting the exam or its following processes. [Para 16][61-F-       A
G]
      2.1 Considering that the marking was strict but not
discriminatory, the remedy of moderation of marks, in order to
remove the variation caused by multiple examiners and dearth
of time, is the only effective, equitable and efficasious solution.   B
The petitioners have stated and rightly so that as per the RTI,
there are no rules governing grace marks. They have suggested
that any appropriate scientific technique like scaling, or
moderation can be adopted in this case, as is done by Union Public
Service Commission (UPSC) for administrative appointments and
UP Public Service Commission (UPPSC) for judicial recruitments.       C
[Para 17][61-H; 62-A-B]
      2.2 This Court in Sanjay Singh’s case considered the
suitability of scaling method in depth but declined to approve the
same for Judicial Examinations. It considered the viability of
scaling and moderation for Judicial Services Examinations and         D
held that use of Scaling is appropriate only when there is
differentiation amongst subjects opted by candidates. This does
not apply in the cases where subjects are uniform. Further,
moderation is a more viable technique so as to exclude the effect
of examiner variability. In the instant case, there was no examiner   E
variability but marking was strict, thus, the option of moderation
deserves to be considered and applied. [Para 18, 19][62-B; 63-
D, F]
      Sanjay Singh & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission
      (2007) 3 SCC 720 : [2007] 1 SCR 235 – referred to.              F
       2.3 Moderation can be by the addition of marks (in case of
strict marking) and/or deduction of marks (in case of lenient
marking). In the instant case that the strict marking has caused
severe prejudice to the candidates and only 0.702% of them could
qualify as against 107 vacancies. The candidates have been            G
suffering for last five years. It is, therefore, inevitable to do
complete justice and invoke the powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution and consequently award grace marks to the
candidates so that more candidates, who are otherwise no less

                                                                      H
46            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A    meritorious, get an opportunity to appear for the viva–voce. The
     question is how many grace marks should be awarded and what
     should be the criteria followed. [Para 20, 21][63-G; 64-D-E]
           Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of Delhi High
           Court (2018) 14 SCC 129 : [2018] 10 SCR 348 –
B          distinguished.
           2.4 Justice Sikri in his concise but scholarly authored report
     has suggested three alternatives for awarding of grace marks;
     First Alternative is awarding 20 marks in Civil Law–I; Second
     Alternative is awarding 20 marks in Civil Law–I and 10 marks in
C    Civil Law–II; and Third Alternative is awarding 35 marks in
     aggregate. After going through the report of Justice Sikri, in this
     regards, it is deemed appropriate to adopt Alternative II of the
     Report, since the marking in Civil Law–I and Civil Law–II both
     was strict. Marking of Civil Law–II was only marginally strict.
     Equity can thus be well balanced by awarding 10 marks to every
D    candidate in Civil Law–II paper and 20 marks in Civil Law–I.
     The prayer of the petitioners for addition of 50 grace marks is
     not found feasible, for the moderation should also look reasonable.
     The petitioners have failed to assign any well founded reason for
     seeking moderation of 50 grace marks, only on the apprehension
E    that even the candidates who secured good marks in written
     examinations were given very low marks in viva–voce and the
     Committee has been awarding a meagre 8 to 18 marks, and hence
     they too will not be able to meet the eligibility criteria of minimum
     50% marks. It is not compulsory for the High Court to fill all
     vacant posts, even if suitable candidates are not available. [Para
F    22][64-F-H; 65-A]
           2.5 The need of viva–voce is an integral part of selection
     process for certain posts. 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
G    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
H    Justice. [Para 23][65-C, E-F]
  PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                      47
     COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

       3. The alternative prayer of the petitioners for re–evaluation    A
by an Independent Expert Committee is not worth acceptance.
Firstly, for the reason that these 107 posts are already lying vacant
for a 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,
                                                                         B
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 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.
[Para 24][65-G-H; 66-A]                                                  C
      H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur
      (2010) 6 SCC 759 : [2010] 7 SCR 189 – relied on.
       4. As regards the petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main
Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva–voce, such a
practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will          D
invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism. The broad
principles to be laid down in this regard must be viewed keeping
in view the selections for various categories of posts by different
Selecting Authorities, for such a self–evolved criteria cannot be
restrocted to Judicial Services only. If the Members of the              E
Interviewing Boards are already aware of the marks of a candidate
secured in the Written Examination, they can individually or
jointly tilt the final result in favour or against such candidate. The
suggested recourse, thus, is likely to form bias affecting the
impartial evaluation of a candidate in viva–voce. As the written
examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a           F
candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall
intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a
judicial post. Any measure which fosters bias in the minds of the
interviewers, therefore, must be done away with. [Para 27][66-
G; 67-A-C]                                                               G
      Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana
      (1985) 4 SCC 417 : [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657 – relied
      on.

                                                                         H
48            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A            5. The respondents are directed to award 20 grace marks
     in Civil Law–I paper and 10 grace marks in Civil Law–II paper
     to all the candidates of 2019 Examination and prepare fresh results
     of the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
     within two weeks and complete the selection process within four
     weeks thereafter. The entire selection process shall be completed
B
     in all respects before 15th February, 2020. The left out vacant
     posts along with vacancies which have occurred meanwhile and
     those anticipated within next six months, be advertised as early
     as possible and be filled in accordance with the timeline prescribed
     by this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan case. [Para 28][67-D-F]
C          Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission
           (2008) 17 SCC 703 – relied on.
           CPIL v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi
           (2017) 11 SCC 456; Prashant Ramesh Chakrawar v.
           UPSC & Ors (2013) 12 SCC 489; Sujasha Mukherji v.
D          High Court of Calcutta (2015) 11 SCC 395 : [2015] 2
           SCR 480; Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC
           159 : [1982] 1 SCR 320; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
           Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714 :
           [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372; Centre for Public Interest
E          Litigation vs Registrar–General High Court of Delhi
           (2017) 11 SCC 456 – referred to.
                           Case Law Reference
     (2017) 11 SCC 456              referred to            Para 10.1

F    [2007] 1 SCR 235               referred to            Para 13
     (2013) 12 SCC 489              referred to            Para 13
     [2015] 2 SCR 480               referred to            Para 13
     [2018] 10 SCR 348              distinguished          Para 21
G    [1982] 1 SCR 320               referred to            Para 23
     [2010] 7 SCR 189               relied on              Para 24
     [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372        referred to            Para 25
     (2017) 11 SCC 456              referred to            Para 26
H
  PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                            49
     COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

[1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657            relied on                 Para 27           A
(2008) 17 SCC 703                  relied on                 Para 28
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
565 of 2019.
      [Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India]                          B
                                   With
      W.P. (C) No. 617/2019 and 651/2019
       Nidesh Gupta, Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advs., Prashant Bhushan,
Hemanth Pothula, Miss Tulika Prakash, Ravi Panwar, Ashok Mathur,               C
Ms. Neidhi Gupta, D. S. Chauhan, Ms. Ruchi Singh, Prashant Kumar,
Surender Kumar Gupta and Ms. Priya Mishra, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
                              JUDGMENT                                         D
       1. These Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution have
been filed at the instance of more than 90 candidates challenging the
entire selection process and evaluation method adopted in the Main
(Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) [herein referred
to as “Main Exam”] in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch)              E
Examination – 2017 and seeking to quash the result declared on 11.4.2019
along with the directions to get all the papers of the Main Exam of the
petitioners to be re-evaluated by an Independent Expert Committee,
besides the constitution of an Independent Judicial Service Commission
for conducting examinations for selection of Lower Judicial Officers.          F
      Factual Background
       2. Pursuant to the Notification-cum-Advertisement No. 6 of 2016
published on 20.03.2017 [herein after referred to as the “Original
Notification”] for recruitment to 109 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
in Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) – 2017, Preliminary                 G
Examination was conducted on 16.07.2017. However, on account of
question paper-leak, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana scrapped the
said examination on 13.09.2017. Thereafter, 107 posts were re-notified
on 27.08.2018, out of which 75 were meant for General Category and
the remaining 32 were earmarked for Scheduled Castes, Backward                 H
50            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A    Classes (a), Backward Classes (b), Economically Backward Persons in
     General Category, Ex-Service Men and Physically Handicapped Persons
     of Haryana State.
            3. The examination was conducted in accordance with provisions
     of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 as applicable to
B    the State of Haryana and as amended from time to time including vide
     notification no. GSR1/Const./Art.234 & 309/2017 dated 09.01.2017. This
     examination comprised of three stages –
             (I) Preliminary Examination
             (II) Main Examination
C
             (III) Viva Voce
           4. Marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination were not to be
     counted towards final results. The purpose was solely to shortlist the
     candidates for the Main Exam. Candidates equal to 10 times the number
     of vacancies advertised, were shortlisted in order of their merit in the
D    respective categories to enable them to sit in the Main Exam. If two or
     more candidates at the last number got equal marks, then all of them
     were considered eligible to sit for the Main Exam, warranting the
     corresponding increase in the stipulated ratio.
            5. The Main Exam consisted of five papers – Civil Law – I, Civil
E    Law – II, Criminal Law, English and Hindi. The first four papers were
     for 200 marks and Hindi was for 100 marks. In order to qualify for viva-
     voce examination, a candidate is required to secure a minimum of 33%
     marks in each of the written exam and an aggregate of minimum 50%
     marks in all five papers [45% for reserved category]. It is pertinent to
F    note that viva-voce is also a part of the Main Exam and treated as the
     sixth paper of 200 marks. No minimum marks are prescribed for viva-
     voce as per the Rules. The candidates equivalent to three times of the
     advertised posts, who qualify in the written Exam are called strictly in
     order of merit to appear for the viva-voce. Marks obtained in the five
     papers are consolidated with the marks obtained in Viva Voce and
G    accordingly a final merit list is prepared.
           6. Preliminary Examination pursuant to the re-notified vacancies
     was held on 22.12.2018 and its result was declared on 21.01.2019. Main
     Exam was held from 15.03.2019 to 17.03.2019. Results of the Main
     Exam were declared on 11.04.2019 wherein only 9 candidates (6 of
H    General Category and 3 of Reserved Categories) were declared qualified
   PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                            51
      COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

and found fit for the Viva Voce. Complete details of the number of              A
candidates who appeared/qualified in each stage of the selection process
are as follows:–
      Candidates appeared in Preliminary Examination            14301
      Candidates qualified for Main Exam                         1282
                                                                                B
      Candidates appeared in Main Exam                           1195
      Candidates found fit for Viva Voce                        9(6+3)
       7. Aggrieved by their exclusion from amongst the candidates
qualified for viva voce and contending that the entire selection process
is unjust, unfair, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,   C
the Petitioners have approached this Court and sought indulgence in
light of the followings:
      a. As per the result declared, only 0.702% candidates managed
         to pass the Main Exam and the rest 99.298% failed. The
         explanation given for this was that no other candidate could
         secure a minimum of 33% in each subject and an aggregate of            D
         50% in all five (45% for reserved category).
      b. Information obtained through RTI discloses that there was no
         marking criteria or model answer key for evaluation of answer
         scripts of the Main Exam. Performance of the candidates solely
         depended on the discretion of the examiner(s). Further, no             E
         principles governing grace marks were available.
       c. The High Court has provided an ineffective and infructuous
          remedy of paid re-checking without the disclosure of marks of
          candidates who had not qualified.
       8. This Court on 29.04.2019 directed the Registrar General of the        F
High Court to be present in person along with answer scripts of all the
candidates who appeared in the Main Exam. On 03.05.2019, having
considered the grievances of the Petitioners, Hon’ble Mr. A.K. Sikri, J.,
a former Supreme Court Judge was requested to look into some of the
answer scripts of the Main Exam to make an assessment whether the
evaluation undertaken should be accepted by the Court. On 31.07.2019,           G
Justice Sikri, after a deep insight and thorough evaluation of the answer
scripts gave his report along with valuable suggestions of paramount
importance.
     Report by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) A. K. Sikri dated
31.07.2019
                                                                                H
52            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A           9. Justice Sikri has evaluated the selection process as well as
     the evaluation method used in the Main Exam and opined under different
     heads as follows:
           9.1 Selection Process – It is observed that the selection process
               is prima facie faultless. The Co-ordinators of the exam were
B              highly qualified persons i.e. Vice Chancellors of National Law
               Schools or very senior professors, who provided the question
               bank to the Recruitment Committee. On this basis, the
               Recruitment Committee formulated the question paper(s) for
               the Main Exam. Examination Centre-in-charge handed over
               answer scripts of 1195 candidates in sealed iron boxes to the
C              Registrar-Recruitment. These iron boxes were kept under
               strict surveillance round the clock. Also, roll numbers were
               concealed on the answer sheets before evaluation. Many
               other adequate security measures were also ensured.
           9.2 Evaluation Method – To make an assessment on the
D              evaluation method adopted in the Main Exam, Justice Sikri
               randomly selected scripts of 5 candidates who had qualified
               the exam and of 5 petitioners. These answer scripts had been
               provided to him in Delhi under strict security. Further, to ensure
               transparency, he checked answer sheets of some other
E              candidates who had not qualified the Main Exam (other than
               petitioners) for which he visited the High Court of Punjab &
               Haryana on two occasions- 24.05.2019 and 11.06.2019.
           9.3 The purpose to evaluate all the scripts was to compare the
               marks given to the qualified candidates with those who did
               not qualify by going through the quality of their answers. He
F
               also had a look at the list of marks obtained by all the
               candidates.
           9.4 Observations :
               Justice Sikri in his report has observed that the evaluation
G              done for Criminal Law, English and Hindi papers was
               appropriate. He identified the main problem in Civil Law-I
               paper and found that there were 18 questions in total in this
               paper and all of them were compulsory. Total time for finishing
               the paper was 3 hours i.e. 180 minutes. He made an
               assessment that if 27 minutes are taken out for reading and
H
PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                       53
   COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

       understanding the questions (1.5 minute per question), then      A
       the candidate was left with 8.5 minutes to answer each
       question. The questions were descriptive in nature. It is
       pertinent to note that the three law papers were evaluated by
       fifteen Evaluators by allotting one question to one Evaluator.
       Thus, one question was evaluated by one Evaluator only in
                                                                        B
       all answer scripts and in this manner each answer script was
       examined by many Evaluators. He, thus, came to the following
       conclusions:
  •    Marking of Civil Law- I was strict. Evaluators seemed to
       expect long answers for each question covering all aspects
       in detail, without recognizing that candidates barely had any    C
       time. Even the candidates who covered all aspects in brief
       were not awarded good marks.
  •    Highest marks in Civil Law- I were 95 out of 200 i.e. 47.5%.
       Even, this candidate deserved more marks.
                                                                        D
  •    The method of getting answer scripts evaluated by many
       Evaluators was intended to attain uniformity. However, a major
       repercussion was that this left the Evaluators with no
       opportunity to see overall performance of the candidates and
       take a holistic view. Evaluators would have had a realistic
       expectation in mind if they checked the complete answer          E
       scripts as opposed to checking only one answer.
  •    Paper was not difficult but too lengthy. Most of the questions
       were descriptive, some replica of bare provisions. Examiner
       expected long answers, but the questions were too many and
       the marking was extremely strict.                                F
  •    For Civil Law –II, – attributes pointed in Civil Law – I were
       not present. Though, it was noted that suitable marks were
       not awarded even when answers were perfect. There was
       marginally strict marking.
                                                                        G
  9.5 Suggestions
      Justice Sikri has unambiguously opined that the situation can
      be remedied by moderating marks so that more students can
      qualify the Main Exam for appearing in Viva Voce. A total of
      311 candidates secured more than 33% marks in Civil Law-I
                                                                        H
54               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A                Paper but they could not secure aggregate 50% marks which
                 impacted their final result. Accordingly, he has after due
                 deliberations suggested the following three alternatives: –
              • Alternative I – 20 Grace Marks i.e. 10% be given in Civil
                Law –I. Using this, 28 more candidates (15 General + 13
B               Reserved) will qualify for Viva Voce making the total number
                of qualified candidates to 37.
              • Alternative II – 20 Grace Marks i.e. 10% be given to all
                candidates in Civil Law-I paper and 10 Grace Marks i.e. 5%
                be added in marks secured by all candidates in Civil Law-II
C               paper. Cumulatively, 30 marks in total will increase. Using this,
                60 (33 General + 27 Reserved) candidates will get through to
                Viva Voce taking the tally of qualified candidates to 69.
              • Alternative III – Moderation be done by giving 35 marks to
                all candidates. This will add 42 General Category candidates
D               and 23 Reserved Category candidates to the existing number
                of 9, thereby making a total of 74.
                 In the concluding remarks, Justice Sikri has recommended use
                 of Alternative I. But keeping in mind availability of large scale
                 vacancies, he has also suggested other two alternatives by
E                virtue of which more candidates can qualify for viva-voce.
              Contentions of Petitioners:
            10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Prashant Bhushan
     at the outset has pointed out an inadvertent clerical error in the report of
     Sikri, J. regarding the number of vacancies allocated for general and
F    reserved categories, as per the re-notified advertisement. On merits, his
     submissions may be summarized as follows:-
              10.1 First Alternative sought by the petitioners is re-evaluation
              of both the Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II papers by an Independent
              Authority as there was strict marking in these papers. For this,
G             the petitioners lay emphasis on the standards laid down in CPIL
              vs Registrar General of High Court of Delhi1.
              10.2 The Second Alternative submission is that 50 grace marks
              may be awarded to all the candidates, so the number of candidates

H
     1   (2017) 11 SCC 456
PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                         55
   COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

  qualified for Viva Voce would increase to 150-160 (nearly 1.5           A
  times the number of vacancies available). It is highlighted that no
  appointment had been made in Haryana Judicial Service since
  2014.
  10.3 Shortlisting of sufficient candidates for appearing in viva-
  voce is desperately needed so that no seat is left vacant keeping       B
  in mind that many of the candidates have already been selected
  for various other State Judicial Services. 31 petitioners have
  already been appointed in different Judicial Services and many
  more would have been appointed from the 1195 candidates who
  appeared in the Main Exam. It can be safely inferred that some
  of the candidates are likely to drop out of Haryana Judicial Service    C
  Interview process or appointment.
  10.4 The petitioners oppose the idea of conducting a fresh
  examination because it will only add to the hardships of the
  candidates, more so when they have already appeared twice in
  the said process.                                                       D

  10.5 The petitioners have highlighted the criteria of obtaining in
  aggregate a minimum of 50% marks in six papers (including five
  papers of Main Exam and sixth- viva-voce) and expressed their
  apprehension of scoring low marks in viva-voce due to which
  they would not be able to secure the minimum aggregate of 50%           E
  marks to meet the eligibility criteria. The reason of apprehension
  is that the same Recruitment Committee constituted by the Punjab
  and Haryana High Court has awarded only 8 to 18 marks to a
  large number of candidates even though they have secured goods
  marks in the written examinations. This Court, therefore, should        F
  employ a moderation technique by which candidates who deserve
  the seat can get it.
  10.6 Seventy-four candidates who will become successful to
  appear for Viva Voce as per Alternative III suggested by Sikri, J.
  would only touch the bare minimum marks i.e. 450 marks out of           G
  900 and if they fail to secure 50% marks in Viva Voce then the
  entire exercise would become futile.
  10.7 The petitioners, thus, suggest moderation and scaling scientific
  techniques to remove variation caused by factors like multiple
  examiners, multiple optional subjects with varying difficulty levels
                                                                          H
56               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A             or different difficulty levels of the mandatory subjects for all
              candidates. These methods, according to them, are used by the
              UPSC for administrative appointments and UPPSC for judicial
              recruitments.
              10.8 Petitioners and other candidates have immensely suffered in
B             the last 5 years in anticipation of the exam dates and fair selection
              and appointments. They could not engage themselves in any other
              career options due to the constant uncertainty.
              10.9 The names and subject marks obtained by each candidate
              should be disclosed in a consolidated list after the Main Exam and
C             before the Viva Voce. Similar procedure is followed in Delhi,
              Rajasthan etc. to ensure transparency.
              10.10 The timelines given in Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public
              Service Commission2 should be strictly adhered to. Respondents
              should conduct the next examination cycle in a time bound manner.
D           11. S/Shri Nidesh Gupta and Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocates
     representing the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on the other hand,
     strenuously opposed the petitioners’ claim and urged that since Justice
     Sikri has not found any fault or illegality in the selection process which
     has been conducted in most fair and impartial manner under strict
E    adminisrative vigil, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with
     the selection process while exercising the power of judicial review. They
     urged that the standards of the examination be not diluted by accepting
     the suggestions given by Justice Sikri in his report and the appropriate
     recourse would be to re-advertise the vacant posts and make selection
     afresh.
F
              Issues for consideration
            12. On a consideration of the rival submissions and on appreciation
     of the report submitted by Justice Sikri, it appears that the following
     questions arise for our consideration:
G             (i) Whether selection process and evaluation method is unjust,
              arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution?
              (ii) Whether moderation of marks (grace marks) is needed in the
              facts and circumstances of the present case?

H
     2   (2008) 17 SCC 703
    PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                       57
       COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

      (iii) Whether re-valuation of Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II papers     A
      is required by an Independent Expert Committee?
      (iv) Whether the marks obtained in the Main Exam be disclosed
      before the viva-voce is conducted?
      Analysis of the Issues:
                                                                            B
      Re: Issue 1
       13. The Petitioners contended that the evaluation has been done
without any marking criteria, it lacks uniformity and is in contravention
of the view taken by this Court in the following decisions –
      • Sanjay Singh & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission3               C
      • Prashant Ramesh Chakrawar vs UPSC & Ors4
      • Sujasha Mukherji vs High Court of Calcutta 5
      • CPIL vs Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi6
      13.1 In Sanjay Singh (supra), this Court analytically went into       D
      inner depth of the scheme of Examination and laid down guidelines
      regarding moderation of marks in case of judicial services
      examination. It was, thus, held:
          “23. When a large number of candidates appear for an
          examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and               E
          consistency in valuation of the answer-scripts. Where the
          number of candidates taking 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            F
          number of candidates take the examination, it will not be
          possible to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by the same
          examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute the
          answer-scripts among several examiners for valuation with
          the paper-setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head
          Examiner. When more than one examiner evaluate the                G
          answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of the
3 (2007) 3 SCC 720
4 (2013) 12 SCC 489
5 (2015) 11 SCC 395

6 (2017) 11 SCC 456
                                                                            H
58   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A    respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded by
     him to the answer-scripts allotted to him for valuation. Each
     examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer-
     scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced
     examiners receive equal batches of answer scripts, there
     is difference in average marks and the range of marks
B
     awarded, thereby affecting the merit of individual
     candidates. This apart, there is ‘Hawk-Dove’ effect. Some
     examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award more
     marks. Some examiners are strict and tend to give less
     marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding
C    marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who
     are strict, there may be variance in the degree of strictness
     or liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is
     given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of
     different marks being assigned. If a very well written
     answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre
D
     answer-script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre
     answer-script may be awarded more marks than the
     excellent answer-script. In other words, there is ‘reduced
     valuation’ by a strict examiner and ‘enhanced valuation’
     by a liberal examiner. This is known as ‘examiner
E    variability’ or ‘Hawk-Dove effect’. Therefore, there is a
     need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se
     the Examiners so that the effect of ‘examiner subjectivity’
     or ‘examiner variability’ is minimised. The procedure
     adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is
     known as moderation. The classic method of moderation
F
     is as follows:
     (i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head
     Examiner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior
     academicians/scholars/senior civil servants/Judges. Where
     the case of a large number of candidates, more than one
G    examiner is appointed and each of them is allotted around
     300 answer-scripts for valuation.
     (ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than
     one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner
     with all the examiners is held soon after the examination.
H
PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                    59
   COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

     They discuss thoroughly the question paper, the possible        A
     answers and the weightage to be given to various aspects
     of the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in
     the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of
     scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head Examiner
     and variations in assigning marks are further discussed.
                                                                     B
     After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard
     to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the
     examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer
     scripts. But this by itself does not bring about uniformity
     of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite of the norms
     agreed, many examiners tend to deviate from the expected        C
     or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken by their
     propensity for strictness or liberality 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    D
     Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the
     corrected answer scripts to verify whether the norms
     evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been
     followed by the examiners. The process of random sampling
     usually consists of scrutiny of some top-level answer scripts
     and some answer books selected at random from the batches       E
     of answer scripts valued by each examiner. The top-level
     answer books of each examiner are revalued by the Head
     Examiner who carries out such corrections or alterations
     in the award of marks as he, in his judgment, considers
     best, to achieve uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary    F
     certain statistics like distribution of candidates in various
     marks ranges, the average percentage 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      G
     by each examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the
     award of marks without any change if the examiner has
     followed the agreed norms, or suggest upward or
     downward moderation, the quantum of moderation varying
     according to the degree of liberality or strictness in
                                                                     H
60             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A              marking. In regard to the top level answer books revalued
               by the Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted as
               final. As regards the other answer books below the top
               level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se
               the examiners, the awards are moderated as per the
               recommendations made by the Head Examiner.
B
               (v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been
               erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it
               is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the answer
               scripts valued by such examiner are revalued either by the
               Head Examiner or any other Examiner who is found to
C              have followed the agreed norms.
               (vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the
               examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head
               Examiner to assess the work of all the Examiners. In such
               a situation, one more level of Examiners is introduced. For
D              every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head
               Examiner who checks the random samples as above. The
               work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief
               Examiner to ensure proper results.
               The above procedure of ‘moderation’ would bring in
E              considerable uniformity and consistency.
               It should be noted that absolute uniformity or consistency
               in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several
               examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum
               uniformity.”
F
                                                            [Emphasis applied]
            13.2 The guidelines laid down in Sanjay Singh (supra) have been
            followed in the other three cases cited on behalf of the petitioners
            viz. Prashant Ramesh Chakrawar (supra), Sujasha Mukherji
            (supra) and CPIL (supra).
G
            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
H
  PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                            61
     COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

prevents chance grading. Every candidate’s answers are marked on               A
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
                                                                               B
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   C
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
checked one answer in each script and in this manner the entire lot of         D
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     E
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.
       16. It has been found as a matter of fact that the officials and        F
officers of the High Court ensured adequate security measures such as
keeping the answer scripts in iron boxes under round-the-clock security
and CCTV cameras. Hence, it is just and fair to hold that no
discriminatory or malafide practice was undertaken while conducting
the exam or its following processes.                                           G
      Re: Issue II
      17. Considering that the marking was strict but not discriminatory,
the remedy of moderation of marks, in order to remove the variation
caused by multiple examiners and dearth of time, is the only effective,
equitable and efficasious solution. The petitioners have stated and rightly    H
62            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A    so that as per the RTI, there are no rules governing grace marks. They
     have suggested that any appropriate scientific technique like scaling, or
     moderation can be adopted in this case, as is done by Union Public
     Service Commission (UPSC) for administrative appointments and UP
     Public Service Commission (UPPSC) for judicial recruitments.
B           18. This Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) considered the suitability
     of scaling method in depth but declined to approve the same for Judicial
     Examinations observing as follows:
           “24. In the Judicial Service Examination, the candidates were
           required to take the examination in respect of all the five
C          subjects and the candidates did not have any option in regard
           to the subjects. In such a situation, moderation appears to be
           an ideal solution. But there are examinations which have a
           competitive situation where candidates have the option of
           selecting one or few among a variety of heterogenous subjects
           and the number of students taking different options also vary
D          and it becomes necessary to prepare a common merit list in
           respect of such candidates. Let us assume that some
           candidates take Mathematics as an optional subject and some
           take English as the optional subject. It is well recognised that
           marks of 70 out of 100 in Mathematics do not mean the same
E          thing as 70 out of 100 in English. In English 70 out of 100
           may indicate an outstanding student whereas in Mathematics,
           70 out of 100 may merely indicate an average student. Some
           optional subjects may be very easy, when compared to others,
           resulting in wide disparity in the marks secured by equally
           capable students. In such a situation, candidates who have
F          opted for the easier subjects may steal an advantage over
           those who opted for difficult subjects. There is another
           possibility. The paper-setters in regard to some optional
           subjects may set questions which are comparatively easier to
           answer when compared to some paper-setters in other subjects
G          who set tougher questions which are difficult to answer. This
           may happen when for example, in Civil Service Examination,
           where Physics and Chemistry are optional papers, Examiner
           ‘A’ sets a paper in Physics appropriate to degree level and
           Examiner ‘B’ sets a paper in Chemistry appropriate for
           matriculate level. In view of these peculiarities, there is a need
H
     PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                       63
        COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

         to bring the assessment or valuation to a common scale so           A
         that the inter se merit of candidates who have opted for
         different subjects, can be ascertained. The moderation
         procedure referred to in the earlier para will solve only the
         problem of examiner variability, where the examiners are
         many, but valuation of answer-scripts is in respect of a single
                                                                             B
         subject. Moderation is no answer where the problem is to find
         inter se merit across several subjects, that is, where candidates
         take examination in different subjects. To solve the problem
         of inter se merit across different subjects, statistical experts
         have evolved a method known as scaling, that is creation of
         scaled score.”                                                      C
                                                      [Emphasis added]
       19. This Court thus considered the viability of scaling and
moderation for Judicial Services Examinations and held that use of Scaling
is appropriate only when there is differentiation amongst subjects opted
by candidates. This does not apply in the cases where subjects are           D
uniform. Further, moderation is a more viable technique so as to exclude
the effect of examiner variability. In Sanjay Singh case (supra), this
Court observed that, “there is “reduced valuation” by a strict
examiner and “enhanced valuation” by a liberal examiner. This is
known as “examiner variability” or “hawk-dove effect” …                      E
[P]rocedure of moderation would bring in considerable uniformity
and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or
consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are
several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum
uniformity.” (para 23) As already discussed, there was no examiner
variability in present case but marking was strict which is why we are of    F
the view that the option of moderation deserves to be considered and
applied.
       20. We may also notice that moderation can be by the addition of
marks (in case of strict marking) and/or deduction of marks (in case of
lenient marking). In Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of Delhi         G
High Court7, 100 posts were advertised and only 64 candidates could
qualify the Main Exam for appearing in the Viva Voce. While considering
the challenge to examination process, this Court held that moderation
cannot be applied for the reason that:
7   (2018) 14 SCC 129                                                        H
64             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A          “This Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) has laid down moderation
           to be appropriate where there are multiple examiners of the same
           subject. It has also been observed that where a number of
           candidates are limited and only one examiner will evaluate, it is to
           be assumed that there will be uniformity in valuation. That is only
           where several examiners evaluate the same subject. There is
B
           difference in average marks and range of marks awarded. There
           is a ‘hawk-dove’ effect. Some examiners are liberal and they
           award more marks; some examiners are strict and they give fewer
           marks, the same may be moderated. There may be variance in
           degree of strictness and liberality. It is in order to remove the
C          subjectivity or variability, that the provision of moderation is
           adopted. It is not the situation in the instant case, hence, the decision
           in Sanjay Singh (supra) rather than buttressing negates the plea
           of moderation urged on behalf of the Petitioners.”
            21. Taniya Malik’s case (supra) is distinguishable as it has been
D    found as a matter of fact in the instant case that the strict marking has
     caused severe prejudice to the candidates and only 0.702% of them
     could qualify as against 107 vacancies. The candidates have been suffering
     for last five years. It is, therefore, inevitable to do complete justice and
     invoke the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and consequently
     award grace marks to the candidates so that more candidates, who are
E    otherwise no less meritorious, get an opportunity to appear for the viva-
     voce. The question is how many grace marks should be awarded and
     what should be the criteria followed.
            22. Justice Sikri in his concise but scholarly authored report has
     suggested three alternatives for awarding of grace marks; First
F    Alternative is awarding 20 marks in Civil Law-I; Second Alternative is
     awarding 20 marks in Civil Law-I and 10 marks in Civil Law-II; and
     Third Alternative is awarding 35 marks in aggregate. The Petitioners, on
     the other hand, have urged for awarding 50 grace marks keeping in
     view the fact that more candidates need to qualify for 107 vacancies.
G    After going through the report of Justice Sikri, in this regards, we deem
     it appropriate to adopt Alternative II of the Report, since the marking in
     Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II both was strict. Marking of Civil Law-II
     was only marginally strict. Equity can thus be well balanced by awarding
     10 marks to every candidate in Civil Law-II paper and 20 marks in Civil
     Law-I. The prayer of the petitioners for addition of 50 grace marks is
H
     PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                           65
        COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

not found feasible, for the moderation should also look reasonable. We           A
may hasten to add that it is not compulsory for the High Court to fill all
vacant posts, even if suitable candidates are not available.
      The petitioners have failed to assign any well founded reason for
seeking moderation of 50 grace marks, only on the apprehension that
even the candidates who secured good marks in written examinations               B
were given very low marks in viva-voce and the Committee has been
awarding a meagre 8 to 18 marks, and hence they too will not be able to
meet the eligibility criteria of minimum 50% marks.
       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        C
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan8, observed that
         “6. … [T]he 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,          D
         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            E
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.                                                                         F
         Re: Issue III
       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 considerable      G
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
8   (1981) 4 SCC 159                                                             H
66             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A    the mandate of this Court in H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh
     Thakur9, laying down that in the absence of any provision under the
     statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Courts should not generally
     direct re-evaluation.
           25. The above-cited view has been reiterated by this Court in
B    Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission10
     observing as under:
            “7. … Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no
            provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation
            of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein
C           the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether
            all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and
            whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of
            each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of
            the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake
            was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General
D
            Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation
            of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
            examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for
            revaluation of his marks.
                                                          [Emphasis added]”
E
            26. The Petitioners have relied on the decision in Centre for Public
     Interest Litigation vs Registrar-General High Court of Delhi11 to
     substantiate their plea for re-valuation of answer scripts by an Independent
     Expert Committee. However, in that case too it was held “if the suitable
     candidates are not found, the employer is not obliged to fill up the
F    posts.” The directions for revaluation were given only as a special case.
            Re: Issue IV
            27. As regards the petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main Exam
     should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered
G    opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency,
     rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism. The broad
     principles to be laid down in this regard must be viewed keeping in view
     the selections for various categories of posts by different Selecting
     9 (2010) 6 SCC 759
     10 (2004) 6 SCC 714
     11 (2017) 11 SCC 456
H
      PRANAV VERMA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH                              67
         COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Authorities, for such a self-evolved criteria cannot be restrocted to Judicial       A
Services only. If the Members of the Interviewing Boards are already
aware of the marks of a candidate secured in the Written Examination,
they can individually or jointly tilt the final result in favour or against
such candidate. The suggested recourse, thus, is likely to form bias
affecting the impartial evaluation of a candidate in viva-voce. The
                                                                                     B
acceptance of the plea of the petitioners in this regard will also run
contrary to the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Ashok Kumar
Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana 12. As the written examination
assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview
is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which
are imperative to hold a judicial post. Any measure which fosters bias in            C
the minds of the interviewers, therefore, must be done away with.
      28. For the reasons stated above, we allow these Writ Petitions in
part with the following directions:-
          (i) The Punjab and Haryana High Court through its Registrar
              General is directed to award 20 grace marks in Civil Law-I             D
              paper and 10 grace marks in Civil Law-II paper to all the
              candidates of 2019 Examination and prepare fresh results of
              the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
              within two weeks and complete the selection process within
              four weeks thereafter.                                                 E
          (ii) The entire selection process shall be completed in all respects
               before 15th February, 2020.
          (iii) The left out vacant posts along with vacancies which have
                occurred meanwhile and those anticipated within next six
                months, be advertised as early as possible and be filled in          F
                accordance with the timeline prescribed by this Court in Malik
                Mazhar Sultan case (supra).
      29. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid order.
                                                                                     G

Nidhi Jain                                          Writ Petitions partly allowed.




12   (1985) 4 SCC 417                                                                H