SUJASHA MUKHERJI versus THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA,  THR. REGISTRAR & ORS.
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 480, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 480 
SUJASHA MUKHERJI 
v. 
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA, 
THR. REGISTRAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2051 of 2015) 
FEBRUARY 19, 2015 
c 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) 
Service Law -
Judicial Service -
Selection -
To the post of District Judge -
One of the 
candidates (appellant) obtained highest marks in 
0 written test comprising of 5 papers -
But on 
moderation of her marks in one of the papers from 
55% to 37%, she was disqualified from further 
consideration i.e. appearing in interview/ viva voce 
on the ground that she did not obtain minimum 
E marks of 40% in each paper -
Held: The 
fundamental predications have not been followed 
for moderation -
Instead of moderation, in fact a 
re-assessment of the answer-scripts of the appellant 
was done - Most of the candidates whose answer-
F scripts had been reassessed, the reduction of marks 
averages to 10 marks, hence deduction of 18 marks 
of the appellant was not justified - After deduction 
of 10 marks from 55 marks, the appellant would 
remain at second position in the merit list -
The 
G respondent-High Court directed to hold interview of 
the appellant. 
Natural Justice - Litigation challenging selection 
H 
480
SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
481 
CALCUTTA, THR. REGISTRAR 
process of the post of District Judge - Senior most A 
examiner (Judge of High Court) was the judge in 
the case -
Held: Such practice is alarmingly 
irregular and tantamount to being a judge in one's 
own cause -
It was imperative for the Judge to 
recuse himself from the adjudication -
Judicial B 
Propriety. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The senior-most Judge of the three c 
Judge/Examiners is the author of the impugned 
judgment. This is alarmingly irregular and 
tantamounts to being a Judge in one's own cause. 
It was, therefore, imperative for the Judge to 
recuse himself from the adjudication; and this o 
facet would ordinarily be sufficient to set aside 
the Impugned Judgment. However, keeping in 
perspective the gravity and urgency of the matters 
in issue, rather than remanding the dispute to the 
High Court, it is proper to proceed to decide the E 
dispute on its merits. [Para 6] [487-D-G] 
2.1 The keystone of the method of moderation 
postulates the existence of a Head Examiner who 
is usually the paper-setter also. In the present F 
case the respondents have neither asseverated 
nor established that a Head Examiner had been 
appointed. A multi person Committee of the High 
Court was entrusted with this fundamental duty 
and that in all probabilities this Committee G 
selected the questionnaire from the multitude of 
questions suggested for the subject. 
The 
fundamental predication of
the paragraph 23(i) and 
(ii) of *Sanjay Singh case, therefore, does not 
H
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A exist. No meeting was convened in which the 
examiners were present so as to discuss the 
substance of the questions and reach a consensus 
as regards suitable/model answers thereto. The 
keystone on which the structure of *Sanjay Singh 
B had been painstakingly constructed, has been 
removed with the result that the edifice has crumbled 
down. It is not logical for the basic features to be 
ignored and thereafter to follow other elements for 
that will become an 
incorrect extrapolation. 
C Furthermore, there is no justification for the junior-
most Judge/examiner to have been given the 
formidable task of moderation. [Para 8] [493-8-H] 
2.2 The avowed purpose behind moderation is to 
D "to achieve uniformity", to eradicate as far as 
possible the 'hawk-dove' effect. If mistaking in the 
valuation of answer-books are found to be rampant 
in the opinion of the Head Examiner, a fresh 
evaluation would have to be undertaken, since 
E moderation by definition cannot remove widespread 
mistakes. In the present case what has transpired in 
actuality is a fresh assessment and not a moderation 
of marks already awarded by an examiner. It appears 
F that sub-para (iii) of *Sanjay Singh case has been 
misconstrued and hence misapplied in the impugned 
judgment whilst it has been correctly applied by the 
Single Judge. [Para 8] [494-H; 495-A-B] 
2.3 So far as most of the candidates whose 
G answer scripts had been reassessed afresh, the
reduction averages 10 marks which, therefore, 
constitutes the mean. Therefore, the deduction of as 
many as 18 marks so far as the appellant is 
H concerned 
is not logical or justified as 
a
SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
483 
CALCUTTA, THR. REGISTRAR 
consequence of moderation. A moderator should A 
give a 
long 
and serious thought to the 
correctness of assessment on the realization he 
finds 
that the 
top-most candidate stands 
disqualified 
by the 
purported exercise of 
moderation. A grave injustice has been caused to 8 
the appellant.[Para 9) (495-F-H; 496-A-B] 
2.4 Since an effort of moderation has been 
carried out it is held that a deduction of 10 marks 
being the appropriate mean arrived at, be 
deducted from the initial marks of 55 obtained by C 
the appellant in Paper II. Despite this deduction 
the Appellant will remain at second position in the 
merit list. In fact, the position would be identical 
even if the appellant were to be awarded the 
minimum marks of 40% i.e., by deducting 15 0 
marks from the original marks obtained by her. 
The 
respondent-High Court is directed to 
interview the appellant. The Chief Justice shall 
ensure that the Interview Committee does not 
comprise any of the three Examiners. [Para 11) 
(496-E-H; 497-A] 
E 
*Sanjay 
Singh 
v. 
U. P. 
Public 
Service 
Commission, Allahabad, (2007) 3 SCC 720 = 2007 
(1) SCR 235 - referred to 
Case Law Reference 
2007 (1) SCR 235 
Referred to 
Para 3 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 2051 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2014 
of the High Court at Calcutta in F. M.A. No. 2538 of 
2013. 
F 
G 
Sanjiv Sen, Dev Roy, Abhishek Sarkar, Partha H
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A Sri for the Appellant. 
Jaideep Gupta, Raja Chatterjee, Runa Bhuyan, M. 
Parmar, G. S. Chatterjee for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Succinctly stated the significant and singular facts 
C of the case are that the Writ Petitioner/Appellant was 
placed in the second position of the Written Test for 
recruitment to the cadre of the District Judge (Entry Level) 
through Direct Recruitment from the Bar-2012. Had her 
D marks not been moderated from 55 per cent to 37 per 
cent in Paper No. I I her aggregate marks would have 
been 307 which is higher than the candidate at Serial 
No.1 by 6.5 marks; in other words, she was the topper 
in the Written Test comprising 5 papers. After moderation 
E was carried out, [which it appears was conducted only in 
respect of Paper No. II], she stood disqualified from 
further consideration, i.e. appearing for the final stage of 
selection, viz., the Interview/viva voce for the reason that 
F obtainment of minimum marks of 40 per cent in each 
paper was the pre-requisite for being called for the 
Interview. These facts have struck us as extremely 
significant for the reason that a candidate who stood 
G First in the Written Examination (in five papers) has not 
been found suitable for even being called for the final 
step in recruitment, i.e. the Interview. It has been asserted 
by the Writ Petitioner/Appellant that she is a
position-
H holder in the Calcutta University; she quite obviously also
SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
485 
CALCUTTA, THR. REGISTRAR [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
possesses extraordinarily high academic and A 
scholastic merit. It has been vehemently contended 
before us, as also before the learned Single Judge 
and the learned Division Bench of the Calcutta 
High Court, that the moderation exercise has been 
undertaken even though it had not been notified or B 
clarified at any stage that the examination would 
be subject to this scrutiny. 
Whilst the 2006 
Guidelines were placed before and were duly 
approved by the Full Court, it appears that the 
2012 Guidelines had not been placed before the C 
Full Court but were followed by the three Judge 
Committee. 
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the High Court 
of Calcutta 
has 
strenuously submitted that D 
moderation has been carried out strictly in 
conformity with the decision of this Court in Sanjay 
Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad 
(2007) 3 SCC 720. It deserves to be immediately 
underscored that the Rules for that examination E 
envisaged a moderation exercise whereas this 
feature is absent so far as the subject examination 
is concerned. 
We must immediately express the 
view that this argument has no merit since F 
Moderation is merely a method to ensure that the 
marking or valuation is free from even unintended 
discrimination or inequality. 
4. Learned Single Judge was of the opinion 
that the ratio of Sanjay Singh had not been G 
comprehensively followed, in that neither
was a 
Head Examiner appointed, nor was a meeting held 
for the purpose of discussing the question paper 
and the possible/model answer thereto. The learned H
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A Single Judge, therefore, found in favour of the Writ 
Petitioner/Appellant. The learned Single Judge had 
also noted that of the three examiners the junior-
most judge have been appointed as the moderator. 
It was also emphasised by the learned Single Judge 
B that instead of moderation, in fact a re-assessment 
of the answer book of the Writ Petitioner/Appellant 
of Paper No.II has been carried out. Noting that if 
the Appellant had received three marks more in 
Paper II even after moderation (i.e. a deduction of 
C 15 marks instead of 18 marks) she would have 
qualified to participate in the viva voce/lnterview, 
the learned Single Judge held that the Appellant 
was unjustifiably excluded from the zone of 
0 consideration and was, therefore, 
entitled to the 
relief as claimed in the petition. The direction that 
was issued was to award the Appellant 55 marks 
in Paper II (i.e. without any moderation whatsoever) 
and to recast her position in the merit list 
E accordingly; and further that the Selection Board 
should take her interview within the least possible 
time and if the Appellant did not qualify after the 
Interview the candidate who would be otherwise 
entitled as per her/his merit panel should be 
F appointed. 
5. In the Impugned Judgment the endeavour of 
the learned Division Bench was palpably to decide 
the matter within the confines of Sanjay Singh. 
G However, they have pointedly clarified the Judgment 
is not
to be read and interpreted like a statute, 
which is the ratio of judgment of this Court. Quite 
palpably, this clarification was necessitated by the 
fact that the High Court had not ordained a 
H
SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
487 
CALCUTTA, THR. REGISTRAR [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
selection procedure which was completely in sync A 
with Sanjay Singh. In contrast to the Single Judge 
the learned Division Bench has played down and 
discounted the fact that a Head Examiner had not 
been appointed and that the Committee had not 
thought it essential to hold a meeting to discuss B 
the questionnaire as well as agree on the 
acceptable/suitable/model answers thereto. It is also 
not controverted that the candidates had not been 
notified that any or all of the papers may be 
subjected 
to 
moderation 
which 
also 
is 
a C 
distinguished feature to the examinations process 
in Sanjay Singh. 
6. We note that the senior-most Judge of the 
three Judge/Examiners is the author of the D 
Impugned Judgment. It requires to be immediately 
stated that this is alarmingly irregular and 
tantamounts to being a Judge in one's own cause. 
It was, therefore, imperative for the learned Judge 
to recuse himself from the adjudication; and this E 
facet would ordinarily be sufficient to set aside the 
Impugned 
Judgment. 
However, 
keeping 
in 
perspective the gravity and urgency of the matters 
in issue before us, rather than remand the dispute F 
to the High Court for a fresh determination by a 
Division Bench comprising learned Judges who are 
not connected in any manner to the subject 
selection, we think it proper to proceed to decide 
the dispute on its merits. 
G 
7. The ratio of
Sanjay Singh, which is the 
fulcrum of the discussion of every aspect of this 
case, is discernable from the following extract: 
H
488 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
"23. When a large number of candidates 
appear for an examination, it is necessary 
to have uniformity and 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 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 examiners evaluate 
the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the 
subjectivity of the 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 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

SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
489 
CALCUTTA, THR. REGISTRAR [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
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 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 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 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 is of a 
large number of candidates, more than 
one examiner is appointed and each of 
them is allotted around 300 answer-
scripts for valuation. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
490 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
(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. They 
discuss thoroughly the question paper, 
the possible 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. 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 or agreed norms, as their 
caution is overtaken by their propensity 
for strictness or liberality or erraticism 
or carelessness during the course of 
valuation. Therefore, certain further 
corrective steps become necessary. 
(iii) After the valuation is completed 
by the examiners, the Head Examiner 
conducts a random sample survey of 
the corrected answer-scripts to verify
SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
491 
CALCUTIA, THR. REGISTRAR [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
whether the norms evolved in the 
A 
meeti.ngs 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 
B 
random from the batches 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 
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 
by 
each 
examiner, the Head Examiner may 
confirm the award of marks without any 
change if the examiner has followed the 
agreed norms, or suggests upward or 
downward moderation, the quantum of 
moderation varying according to the 
degree of liberality or strictness in 
marking. In regard to the top level 
answer books revalued by the Head 
Examiner, 
his award 
of marks 
is 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B 
made by the Head Examiner. 
(v) If in the opinion of tl)e Head 
Examiner there has been erratic or 
careless marking by any examiner, for 
C 
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 have 
D 
followed the agreed norms. 
(vi) Where the number of candidates 
is very large and the examiners are 
numerous, it may be difficult for one 
E 
Head Examiner to assess the work of 
all the examiners. In such a situation, 
one 
more 
level 
of 
examiners 
is 
introduced. For every ten or twenty 
examiners, 
there 
will 
be 
a 
Head 
F 
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. 
G 
H 
The above procedure of "moderation" 
would bring in considerable uniformity and 
consistency. It should be noted that absolute 
uniformity or consistency in valuation is
SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
493 
CALCUTTA, THR. REGISTRAR [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
impossible to achieve where there are 
A 
several examiners and the effort is only to 
achieve maximum uniformity". 
8. It appears to us to be uncontrovertibly 
comprehensible that the cornerstone, nay keystone, B 
of the method of moderation enunciated by this 
Court in Sanjay Singh postulates the existence of 
a Head Examiner who is usually the paper-setter 
also. In this case the Respondents have neither 
asseverated nor established that a Head Examiner C 
had been appointed. Learned Senior Counsel had 
adumbrated that a multi person Committee of the 
High Court was entrusted with this fundamental 
duty and that in all probabilities this Committee 
selected the questionnaire from the multitude of D 
questions 
suggested 
for 
the 
subject. 
The 
fundamental predication of the paragraph 23(i) and 
(ii) of Sanjay Singh, therefore, does not exist. 
Even if that were to be overlooked, no meeting 
was convened in which the examiners were present E 
so as .to discuss the substance of the questions 
and reach a consensus as regards suitable/model 
answers thereto. Quite evidently, the keystone on 
which the structure of Sanjay Singh had been F 
painstakingly constructed, has been removed with 
the result that the edifice has crumbled down. It is 
not logical for the basic features to be ignored and 
thereafter to follow other elements for that will 
become an incorrect extrapolation.
Furthermore, we. G 
find no justification for the junior-most Judge/ 
examiner to have been given the formidable task 
of moderation. In the course of argument, we had 
requested learned Senior Counsel for the High 
H
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A Court to provide us with the curriculum vitae of the 
learned Judges in order to appreciate this decision; 
it could have been that he possessed an academic 
background or previous experience with regard to 
the conduct of Examination which made him the 
B most suitable amongst the three Examiners to 
perform the task of moderation, but we could not 
find 
any 
additional 
criteria 
to 
support 
his 
candidature as the Moderator. Furthermore, we find 
that the marks awarded by the 1st Examiner have 
C been left unchanged, except of cosmetic alterations. 
In fact, there mostly appears to be a variation of 
nil or 0.5 marks after the moderation whereas large 
scale changes have been effected so far as the 2nd 
0 
Examiner is concerned. 
Assessment of answer 
books by an examiner is intrinsically a subjective 
exercise making it a rarity for two of them award 
the same percentage or marks out of 100. It is, 
therefore, surprising to note that the Moderator's 
E subjectivity is almost identical to that of the 1st 
Examiner, but drastically different to the 
2nd 
Examiner. This has persuaded us to conclude that 
what has transpired in actuality is a fresh 
assessment and not a moderation of marks already 
F awarded by an examiner. This is not the purpose 
or objective behind moderation. As has been clearly 
spelt out in Sanjay Singh, where there are 
numerous examiners it is but to be expected that 
one may be more liberal when
compared to another, 
G who may even be strict, giving birth to the 'hawk-
dove' effect, which has so perspicuously and 
graphically been explained in Sanjay Singh. 
The 
avowed purpose behind moderation is to "to achieve 
uniformity", to eradicate as far as possible the 
H
SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
495 
CALCUTTA, THR. REGISTRAR [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
'hawk-dove' effect. If mistaking in the valuation of A 
Answer-books are found to be rampant in the 
opinion of the Head Examiner, a fresh evaluation 
would have to be undertaken, since moderation by 
definition cannot remove widespread mistakes. It 
appears to us that sub-para (iii) of Sanjay Singh B 
has been misconstrued and hence misapplied in 
the Impugned Judgment whilst it has been correctly 
applied by the learned Single Judge. 
9. Revaluation as envisaged in the paragraph C 
23 of Sanjay Singh has to be undertaken by the 
Head Examiner/Paper Setter who, as has already 
been noted, is non-existent in the present case. 
The effort would be to eradicate the 'hawk-dove' 
syndrome, and this is achieved by computing the D 
'mean' and, thereafter, to add or deduct, across 
the board, in all the Answer-sheets. It cannot be 
disputed that this is not what has transpired in the 
present case since quite apparently moderation has 
been carried out in respect of the assessment/ E 
marking of the 2nd Examiner and that too in Paper 
No. 11. 
So far as most of the candidates whose 
answer scripts had been reassessed afresh, the 
reduction averages 10 marks which, therefore, F 
constitutes the mean. Therefore, the deduction of 
as many as 18 marks so far as the Appellant is 
concerned 
is 
not logical or justified 
as 
a 
consequence of moderation. 
We also think that a 
moderator should give a
long and serious thought G 
to the correctness of his assessment on the 
realization he finds that the top-most candidate 
stands disqualified by the purported exercise of 
moderation. 
As we have already noted above, 
H
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A instead of deducting 18 marks if even 15 marks 
had been deducted, the Appellant who has scored 
the highest marks before moderation and the 
second highest marks even after moderation, would 
have qualified for being called to the Interview/viva 
B voce. A grave injustice has been caused to the 
Appellant. The learned Division Bench should have 
been alive to this injustice since it had before it 
the judicial determination of the learned Single 
Judge. We shall abjure from making any further 
C observation. 
10. On the first hearing of this matter, we had 
been informed by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned 
Senior Counsel that one vacancy has been 
D preserved during the pendency of the Writ Petition 
as well as the Appeal, which position we had 
ordered should continue. 
11. The Appeal is allowed and the Impugned 
E Judgment is set aside. Since an effort of moderation 
has been carried out we hold that a deduction of 
10 marks being the appropriate mean arrived at be 
deducted from the initial marks of 55 obtained by 
the Appellant in Paper II. Despite this deduction 
F the Appellant will remain at second position in the 
merit list. In fact, the position would be identical 
even if the Appellant were to be awarded the 
minimum marks of 40 per cent, i.e., by deducting 
15 marks from the original marks obtained by her. 
G We direct the Respondent-High Court to interview 
the Appellant within one week from its receiving 
knowledge
of this Judgment. The result thereof must 
be declared within one week thereafter. The Hon'ble 
H Chief Justice shall ensure that the Interview

SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
497 . 
CALCUTIA, THR. REGISTRAR [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
Committee does not comprise any of the three A 
Examiners. If the result remains unfavourable to 
the Appellant the post shall remain unfilled for a 
period of 30 days therefrom. 
12. There will be no orders as to costs. 
B 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal allowed.