PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed petitions by two practicing advocates seeking re-evaluation of their examinations papers for the posts of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).
Halarnkar Reeha and Madhuja Vernekar, both practicing advocates had applied for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC. The petitioners had answered written examinations which consisted of two papers. Both were declared successful in Paper I (Civil) and unsuccessful in paper II (Criminal). Not satisfied with the marks given in Paper (II) by evaluator and moderator, they filed separate writ petitions seeking directions for re-evaluation/re-correction of Paper II, on the ground that evaluation was done very strictly and secondly key answers were not provided though asked, which prevented them from raising specific grounds.
They prayed for quashing of the result with regards to paper II and to direct the respondent i.e. Registrar (Administration) of High Court government to re-evaluate the paper.
The petitioners strongly contended that all assessment carried out was unjustified and evaluation of the papers had been carried out very harshly. Since the answer key was not provided, the petitioners were unable to demonstrate the grounds as to how marks were not properly evaluated or given on the steps or on the specific answers. They claimed that though papers were evaluated by the evaluator and thereafter by moderator, marks of the evaluator and the moderator were surprisingly equal in most of the questions, which showed that the moderator failed to apply his mind. It further stated that moderator had to give separate marks than the evaluator so as to demonstrate that moderator had also applied his mind to the answers of candidates.
The petitioners also contended that passing percentage in the said examination was very low and only one candidate was declared successful in the written examination. The High Court had invited applications to fill up four posts of Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC.
Advocate General Devidas Pangam submitted that the Goa Judicial Service Rules 2013 does not provide re-evaluation of the papers and therefore, relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. He told the Court that that question papers were evaluated by sitting Additional District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge whereas moderation was carried out by the Principal District Judges.
The Division Bench comprising Justices B P Deshpande and Valmiki SA Menezes held that the Goa Judicial Service Rules, 2013 nowhere provides re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the main examination. It also referred to various observations by the Supreme Court including the one which stated that the Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate; it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics.