Holding

The Court held that the marking of the English Essay was uniform and not arbitrary, and therefore dismissed the petitions.

Summary

The petitioners, candidates for the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024, challenged the low marks awarded to them in the Language Paper‑II (English Essay) of the main examination, alleging arbitrary and discriminatory evaluation that caused them to miss the interview cut‑off. They sought quashing of the main examination results and a re‑evaluation by an expert committee under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court examined the marking scheme prescribed by the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010, noting that the first essay question was marked by a District Judge and the remaining questions by separate sets of English professors to ensure uniformity. Statistical data showed that 95.76% of candidates scored between zero and fifteen marks, but no significant variation was found between candidates who qualified for the interview and those who did not. After perusing the answer sheets, the Court found no evidence of deliberate low marking or infirmity in the evaluation process. Consequently, the Court held that the marking was not arbitrary and dismissed the petitions, directing aggrieved candidates to approach the Rajasthan High Court under Article 226 for individual grievances.

Issues considered

Whether there is arbitrary or discriminatory variation in the marks awarded in the English Essay paper of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 main examination.
Whether the Supreme Court can intervene under Article 32 to quash the examination results and order a re‑evaluation.
Whether the marking process, as per the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010, is uniform and free from infirmity.

Legislation cited

Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010

Subjects

Examination processMarkingArbitrary variationWide variationLikelihood of discrepancyUniform evaluation processInterference in examination process

Judgment

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2240 : 2024 INSC 830

Sonal Gupta & Ors.
v.
Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 708 of 2024)
24 October 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether there is any arbitrary variation in marks obtained by
candidates in the language examination for the Rajasthan Civil
Judge Cadre 2024 which may affect the integrity of the overall
results of the examination.

Headnotes†
Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 – Petitioners qualified
for main examination of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre
2024 – Did not meet the cut-off marks for the interview – Writ
petitions under Article 32 for quashing of results of main
examination and re-evaluation by expert committee – No
marked difference in the strictness of evaluation undergone
by candidates who qualified for the interview – Absent any
significant variation, the process of marking not suspect –
Answer sheets duly perused by the Court – Marking of the
essay does not suffer from an infirmity that would cast doubt
on the overall assessment of the English Essay answer
sheets – Petitions dismissed:
Held: 1. Petitioners qualified for the main examination for the
Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 – Rule 20 of the Rajasthan
Judicial Services Rules 2010 (RJS Rules) stipulates the scheme of
the selection process – Main examination divided into four parts: (i)
Law Paper – I (Civil); (ii) Law Paper – II (Criminal); (iii) Language
Paper – I (Hindi Essay); and (iv) Language Paper – II (English
Essay) – Language papers to be marked out of fifty each – Three
questions were required to be answered in the English Essay – For
all candidates, the first question was assessed by a District Judge

* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2241

Sonal Gupta & Ors. v.
Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.

level officer – The second and the third questions respectively
assessed by distinct sets of English Professors working in a
Government College to ensure fairness of the process – Minimum
aggregate of 40% (35% for SC/ST candidates) for candidates to
be eligible for the interview – No minimum marks for language
paper – Petitioners aggrieved by fatally low marks in the English
Essay that ranged between zero and fifteen out of fifty – Writ
Petitions filed under Article 32 for quashing of results of main
examination and for re-evaluation of answer papers by an expert
committee – Petitions dismissed [Paras 3-5]
2. Note placed on record indicated 95.76% of the candidates
secured between zero and fifteen marks – Tabulated statement filed
by High Court of Rajasthan indicating marks secured in the Law
Paper-I (Civil) and Law Paper-II (Criminal) by those candidates who
secured between zero and fifteen marks in the English Essay and
who did not qualify for the interview stage – Petitioners have not
demonstrated any marked difference in the strictness of evaluation
undergone by candidates who have qualified for the interview –
Absent any significant variation, the process of marking itself is
not suspect. [Paras 8-12]
3. Answer sheets perused by Court – No substance in the allegations
that there was deliberate low marking in the English Essay paper –
No statistical discrepancy that would warrant intervention – Marking
of the essay does not suffer from an infirmity that would cast doubt
on the overall assessment of the English Essay answer sheets –
Petitions dismissed – Liberty given to candidates having individual
grievances, except for issue concluded by this order, to move the
High Court under Article 226. [Paras 13-15]

Case Law Cited
Sanjay Singh v. UP Public Services Commission [2007] 1 SCR
235 : [2007] 3 SCC 720; Pranav Verma v. High Court of P&H [2019]
15 SCR 43 : [2020] 15 SCC 377; Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar
v. UPSC [2013] 12 SCC 489; Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of
Calcutta [2015] 2 SCR 480 : [2015] 11 SCC 395; CPIL v. High
Court of Delhi [2017] 11 SCC 456 – relied on.

List of Acts
Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010.
2242 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Examination process; Marking; Arbitrary variation; Wide variation;
Likelihood of discrepancy; Uniform evaluation process; Interference
in examination process.

Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 708 of 2024
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
W.P.(C) Nos. 706 and 711 of 2024, Diary Nos. 48927 and 48993
of 2024 and W.P.(C) No. 709 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Jaideep Gupta, Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Advs., Saket Sikri,
Ms. Ekta K Sikri, Vikalp Mudgal, Ajaypal Singh Kullar, Kshitij
Mudgal, Ms. Anshul Rajora, Ms. Sakshi Gaur, Ms. A. Sumathi, Ms.
Ila Shikhar Sheel, Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Siddharth Banerjee, Saurabh
Sharma, Mayank Barua, Ms. Puja Shaw, Mrs. Arpana Soni, Mohit
Yadav, Mrs. Aarti Pal, Keshav Dev, Vijay Kumar, Chand Qureshi,
B. Shravanth Shanker, Siddharth Bapna, Rahul Jajoo, Gaurav Kumar,
Naman Sherstra, Rajat Kumar, Devesh Kumar, Saurabh Poonia,
Vinod Sharma, Apoorv Shukla, Puneet Chahar, Ms. Prabhleen
A. Shukla, Ayush Acharjee, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Digvijay Dam, Vishal Meghwal,
Mukul Kumar, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Anurag
Yadav, Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1. A hundred and nine Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Petitioners are
candidates who appeared for the main examination of the Rajasthan
Civil Judge Cadre 2024 which was conducted on 31 August 2024 and
1 September 2024. Their grievance is that they have been awarded
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2243

Sonal Gupta & Ors. v.
Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.

marks arbitrarily in the subjective exam paper, namely, the Language
Paper – II (English Essay) which has led to them falling below the
cut off marks for the interview round. A petition for special leave is
also preferred against an order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated
19 October 2024 dismissing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution on identical issues in light of these proceedings having
commenced before this Court. The Petitioners seek the quashing
of the results of the main exams and re-evaluation of the answer
sheets by an expert committee. Since the issues are identical, the
petitions are being disposed of together.

Factual Background
2. The Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules 2010 1 stipulate that
recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges shall be made directly on
the basis of a competitive examination.2 The scheme of the selection
process takes place in three stages, namely, (i) the preliminary
examination; (ii) the main examination; and (iii) the interview round.3
The scheme of the written examination is provided in Schedule
IV of the RJS Rules. The High Court of Rajasthan issued an
Advertisement numbered RHC/Exam Cell/RJS/CJC/2024/783 which
notified the Civil Judge Cadre 2024 examination to fill two hundred
and twenty-two vacancies.
3. The Petitioners qualified at the preliminary examination which was
conducted on 23 June 2024. The main examination was divided
into four parts, namely, (i) Law Paper – I (Civil); (ii) Law Paper – II
(Criminal); (iii) Language Paper – I (Hindi Essay); and (iv) Language
Paper – II (English Essay). The law papers were to be marked out of
one hundred each and the language papers were to be marked out
of fifty each. Three questions were required to be answered in the
English Essay. For all candidates, the first question was assessed by
a District Judge level officer while the second question and the third
question respectively were directed to be assessed by distinct sets
of English Professors working in a Government College to ensure
the fairness of the process.

1 ‘RJS Rules’.
2 Rule 16, RJS Rules.
3 Rule 20, RJS Rules.
2244 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

4. The RJS Rules stipulate that the minimum cut off marks in law papers
for qualifying for the viva voce shall be 35% for the unreserved
category and 30% for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
categories. Candidates must have an aggregate of 40% (35% for SC/
ST candidates) to be eligible for the interview. No minimum marks
are stipulated for language papers.
5. The Petitioners appeared for the examination on 31 August 2024
and 1 September 2024. The results were declared on 1 October
2024. Six hundred and thirty-eight candidates qualified for the
interview stage of the recruitment process. When the Petitioners
received their score cards on 4 October 2024, they noticed that
their marks in the Language Paper-II (English Essay) were fatally
low – ranging between zero and fifteen out of fifty marks. Aggrieved
by the award of low marks in the English Essay, the Petitioners
moved this Court for re-evaluation of the answer papers by an
expert committee and setting aside of the results which were
notified on 4 October 2024.
6. The question which arises for consideration is whether there is
any arbitrary variation in the marks obtained by candidates in the
language examination which may affect the integrity of the overall
results of the examination.
7. The Petitioners argued that there are serious discrepancies in the
marks awarded to candidates for the English Essay examination.
They submit as follows:
a. In the absence of minimum qualifying marks for the language
papers, the marking has been skewed. Candidates who have
otherwise qualified in the law papers have been awarded
unreasonably low marks in the English essay paper;
b. Candidates who have attempted the paper have also been
awarded zero marks. Since the paper is subjective in nature,
the award of no marks is inexplicable;
c. The limited space in the Question Paper-cum-Answer Booklet
hindered the ability of candidates to answer appropriately; and
d. Over fourteen thousand answer sheets were checked by a limited
number of examiners within a span of one month between the
date of examination and the declaration of results.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2245

Sonal Gupta & Ors. v.
Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.

Procedural history
8. To address the issues which have arisen in this case, the Court
issued notice on 18 October 2024 and directed the answer sheets
in the English essay of those candidates who have been awarded
below fifteen marks to be produced before the Court. Mr Tushar
Mehta, Solicitor General placed a note on record indicating that of
the 3534 candidates who appeared in the English Essay examination,
3384 or 95.76% of the candidates have secured between zero and
fifteen marks. We found it necessary to scan and analyse the data
to inspect whether arbitrary variations are discernible.
9. Accordingly, on 21 October 2024 this Court directed that a tabulated
statement be placed before the Court indicating the marks which
were secured in the Law Paper-I (Civil) and Law Paper-II (Criminal)
respectively by those candidates who appeared in the English
medium, who secured between zero and fifteen marks in the English
Essay and who have not qualified for the interview stage. The trunks
containing the record were directed to be kept in the custody of
the Secretary General of this Court. Pursuant to our directions, the
High Court of Rajasthan has produced a tabulated sheet running
into seventy-three pages.

Analysis
10. In Sanjay Singh v. UP Public Services Commission4 this court
opined that a degree of variation may occur when a large number
of candidates are evaluated through an examination by a number
of evaluators. However, the likelihood of discrepancy arises when a
wide variation can be made out from the results. In Pranav Verma v.
High Court of P&H,5 this Court has held that the likelihood of
discrepancy is reduced where the evaluation process is uniform.
The Court held as follows:
“14. … We are of the view that evaluation done by multiple
evaluators i.e. one evaluator examining and marking one
question in all the marksheets, ensures uniformity and
prevents chance grading. Every candidate’s answers

4 (2007) 3 SCC 720
5 (2020) 15 SCC 377
2246 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

are marked on same parameters by the same examiner.
There can possibly be no other better method to ensure
uniformity in evaluation. …
15. The marking criteria and evaluation method was
strict but it was so for everyone. This was maybe for the
reason that one evaluator checked one answer in each
script and in this 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 candidates who covered all aspects briefly
were not awarded proper marks. Unlike the hypothetical
illustration given in Sanjay Singh case, 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.”
11. In Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC,6 this Court has held
that in the absence of any evidence that meritorious candidates have
been deprived of their marks deliberately, the Court cannot interfere.
This Court held that merely because candidates who cleared the
preliminary exam did not further clear the main exam is no ground
to infer fault on part of the examining authority.
12. In the present case the first question was assessed by a District
Judge level officer while the second question and the third question
respectively were directed to be assessed by distinct sets of English
teachers working in a Government College to ensure the fairness
of the process. The Petitioners have not demonstrated any marked
difference in the strictness of evaluation which was undergone by
the candidates who have qualified for the interview. Absent any
significant variation, the process of marking itself is not suspect. The
question which remains is whether lower marks were deliberately
awarded in the English essay exam.

6 (2013) 12 SCC 489
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2247

Sonal Gupta & Ors. v.
Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.

13. In the interest of justice and fairness, we have perused the answer
sheets which have been placed for the scrutiny of the Court by
officers of the High Court of Rajasthan who were present before
this Court on 25 October 2024. Based on the nature of the answers
in the English Essay, we have no doubt that there is no substance,
even prima facie, in the allegations that there was a deliberate low
marking in the English Essay paper. The records of the answer
sheet were directed to be placed before this Court. The answer
sheets were duly perused and remained in the safe keeping of the
Secretary General of this Court.
14. Based on the tabulated position which has been disclosed before
the Court, we find no statistical discrepancy that would warrant the
intervention of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The
marking of the essay does not suffer from an infirmity that would
cast doubt on the overall assessment of the English Essay answer
sheets. The petitions, therefore, fail to qualify the parameters followed
by this Court in a consistent line of precedent.7

Conclusion
15. We, therefore, decline to entertain these petitions. The Petitions
shall accordingly stand dismissed. If any candidate has an individual
grievance, save and except for the issue which has been concluded
by this order, liberty is granted to move the High Court of Rajasthan
in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
16. The Secretary General may now hand over the trunks containing
the graded answer sheets of the English Essay to the team from the
High Court of Rajasthan who has produced the files.
17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Petitions dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)

7 Sanjay Singh v. UP Public Services Commission (2007) 3 SCC 720; Prashant R Chakrawar v. UPSC
(2013) 12 SCC 489; Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta (2015) 11 SCC 395; CPIL v. High Court
of Delhi (2017) 11 SCC 456; and Pavan Verma v. High Court of P&H (2020) 15 SCC 377.