SONAL GUPTA & ORS. versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR & ANR.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2240, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[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 20101 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.