906-cwp-9687-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9687 OF 2025 Surekha B. Malekar … Petitioner V/s. Hon’ble High Court, Bombay and Anr. … Respondents ---------------- Mr. Abhijeet F. Khade for the Petitioner. Mr. Rahul Nerlekar a/w. Mr. Saket S. Tare for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl. GP. a/w. Smt. Vrishali Raje, AGP for Respondent No.2/State . ---------------- CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & N.R. BORKAR, J.J. DATE : 15th JULY, 2025. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner prays for reevaluation and reassessment of the Question Paper II – Criminal Law, mains written examination for the Post of District Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner after qualifying the preliminary examination for the post of District Judge appeared for the main written examination, consisting of a Civil Law (Paper 1) and Criminal Law (Paper 2) carrying 100 marks each on 18th January 2025 and 19th January 2025 respectively. The result of the main examination was declared DSS 1/2 DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Digitally signed by DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date: 2025.07.29 10:55:42 +0530 906-cwp-9687-25.doc on 12th June 2025, the petitioner secured 65 marks in Civil Law (Paper 1) and 42 marks in Criminal Law (Paper 2). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner had got 45 marks, she would have qualified for Viva-Voce. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the Criminal Law (Paper 2), for “Q.1” which carries “30” marks, the petitioner was given only “12” marks. It is further pointed out that so far as “Q.5” is concerned, which carries “10” marks, the petitioner was given “6” marks. One of the objections of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as regards “Q.5C” which carries “5” marks, the petitioner was given “0” marks, whereas in respect of “Q.5D” which carries “5” marks, the petitioner was given “6” marks. This according to the petitioner indicates that the answer- sheet was not correctly evaluated. 5. It is not possible for us to substitute our opinion for the assessment of the examiner as the answers are descriptive in nature. So far as “Q.5” is concerned, which carries 10 marks, the petitioner had been given “6” marks. 6. After considering the matter in its entirety, we do not find this is a fit case to interfere and direct reevaluation of answer-sheet. The Petition is therefore, dismissed. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.) DSS 2/2