PRANAV VERMA & OTHERS V THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR. – WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 565 OF 2019
This petition was brought to The Supreme Court of India before the bench consisting of Honourable Justice S.A. Bobde, Honourable Justice B.R. Gavai and Honourable Justice Surya Kant.
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) 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.
ISSUES RAISED
(i) Whether selection process and evaluation method are 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?
(iii) Whether re-valuation of Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II papers is required by an Independent Expert Committee?
(iv) Whether the marks obtained in the Main Exam be disclosed before the viva-voce is conducted?
PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS
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 reserved categories, as per the re-notified advertisement. On merits, his submissions may be summarized as follows:-
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, the petitioners lay emphasis on the standards laid down in CPIL vs Registrar General of High Court of Delhi.
The Second Alternative submission is that 50 grace marks may be awarded to all the candidates, so the number of candidates qualified for Viva Voce would increase to 150-160 (nearly 1.5 times the number of vacancies available). It is highlighted that no appointment had been made in Haryana Judicial Service since 2014. Shortlisting of enough candidates for appearing in viva-voce is desperately needed so that no seat is left vacant keeping 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 Interview process or appointment. The petitioners opposed 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. 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 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. Petitioners and other candidates have immensely suffered in 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.
The names and subject marks obtained by each candidate should be disclosed in a consolidated list after the Main Exam and before the Viva Voce. Similar procedure is followed in Delhi, Rajasthan etc. to ensure transparency. The timelines given in Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission should be strictly adhered to.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION
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 administrative 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.
JUDGMENT DELIVERED
Thereby, this Honourable Court gave its judgement as under,
“(i) The Punjab and Haryana High Court through its Registrar General is 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.
(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 accordance with the timeline prescribed by this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan case.
All pending applications, if any, are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.”
View/Download Judgment: PRENAV VERMA ORS. V. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
– Tanvi Srivatsan
Comments