[2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10027/2020 Shefali Sharma D/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Sikar House, Outside Chandpole Gate, Jaipur (Rajasthan)- 302016 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Registrar General, Dan- giyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342001 2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Dan- giyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342001 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, De- partment Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Secretar- iat, Jaipur. 4. Harshit Sharma, (Roll No. 16905) Newly Appointed R.j.s. Officer Through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur Rajasthan - 342001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria with Mr. Arihant Samdaria Ms. Shefali Sharma, petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. V.K. Sharma Mr. Madhav Dadhich Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 12/02/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ peti- [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (2 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] tion and may kindly call for record if this Hon’ble Court so pleases; (I) By issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court may gra- ciously be pleased to appoint a High Level Committee to examine the discrepancies, cuttings and interpolations made by the Examiner, while examining the Answer book of Law Paper -II of the Petitioner in the Recruitment to the Civil Judge Cadre Examination, 2018, which resulted in re- duction of 7 marks to the petitioner in the aforesaid paper; and may also direct the Respondents to revise the result sheet of the petitioner so as to increase her marks in Law Paper- II accordingly. (ii) By issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to revise and increase the marks of the petitioner in aforesaid Law Paper -II examination from 44.5 to 51.5 and consequently, aggregate marks of en- tire Examination from 147.5 to 154.5 and accordingly she may be selected and ap- pointed on the post of Civil Judge and Judi- cial Magistrate in Civil Judge Cadre pur- suant to aforesaid advertisement dated 15.11.2018 along with all consequential benefits. (ii) (a)By way of issue of appropriate writ, order or direction thereby order dated 23.12.2020 issued by respondents in re- spect of respondent No. 4 Shri Aditya Sharma may kindly be quashed and set aside and instead of respondent No. 4, the petitioner may kindly be given appointment on the post of Civil Judge Cadre along with all consequential benefits. Any other appropriate relief, order as may be deemed fit and proper looking to the facts of the case by this Hon’ble Court may also kindly be passed in favour of the hum- ble petitioner.” 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that an advertisement dated 15.11.2018 was issued holding recruitment [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (3 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate in Civil Judge Cadre for 197 vacancies in terms of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules, 2010). Basically there are three stages in the selection process i.e. 1. Preliminary Examination, 2. Main Examination and 3. Interview and thereafter other requirements to be fulfilled as per various orders/circulars issued from time to time. The petitioner applied for the said post pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.11.2018 and appeared in the preliminary examination and being qualified was called for and appeared in the Main Examination and thereafter in the interview. The final result of the examination was declared on 19.11.2019 wherein the cut off for the category of General Candidate to which the petitioner belongs was declared as 153.5 marks and the petitioner secured 147.5 marks and there- fore having secured less marks than the cut off, she was declared unsuccessful. Being dissatisfied by the result, the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 asked to disclose her answer-sheets, which were supplied to her. Still being aggrieved thereto, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the reduction of marks in the written test held by the respondents. 3. When the matter came up before the Court on 25.07.2024, the following order was passed:- “The issue arising for consideration in this case is whether the marks awarded by the Examiner could be altered by the Head Ex- aminer. [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (4 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that the aforesaid procedure was adopted by respondents No. 1 and 2 pursuant to a policy decision. The reply on affidavit states regarding adopting such a procedure for evaluation of answer sheets. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, in order to sat- isfy the Court that such a policy decision was taken at an appropriate level in the course of examination, may place in sealed cover rele- vant resolution of the competent authority for perusal of the Court on the next date of hearing. List this matter on 12.09.2024.” 4. Thereafter on 12.09.2024, the following order was passed :- “In compliance of order dated 25.07.2024, the note-sheets containing various stages and steps taken and procedure followed in the matter of conduct of the examination including valuation have been placed in sealed cover before us. We have perused the same. The contents of the note-sheets reflect what has been stated in the paragraph No. 07 of the reply. Prima-facie, it appears that a uniform mechanism of evaluation was carried by the respondents which involved an internal process of moderation/modification of marks proposed by evaluator and modified by the head examiner. [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (5 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] Learned counsel for the respondents is granted two weeks’ time to file an affidavit whether similar modifications had been made in respect of the other candidates or it was a solitary case of the present peti- tioner. Confidential documents are re-sealed and handed over to the learned counsel for the respondents. Matter be listed after two weeks.” 5. When the matter was again listed on 12.09.2024, the follow- ing order was passed :- “1. A direction was issued by this Court on 12.09.2024 to the respondents to file an affidavit whether similar modifications had been made in respect of the other can- didates or it was a solitary case of the present petitioner. 2. It appears that on that day some confidential documents had also been pre- sented before the Court which were re- sealed and handed over to the learned counsel for the respondents by the Bench headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court has invited out attention to the affidavit filed by the Registrar (Writs), which does not mention of the exercise having been done of modifications in re- spect of the other candidates, but simply states that it was not a solitary case of the present petitioner. 4. We are not satisfied with the affidavit as filed. 5. Let the record relating to the con- cerned petitioner and answer copies of some of the other candidates who had ap- peared in the examination be placed in a sealed envelop before us on the next date. 6. The Registrar (Examination) or Offi- cial from the Examination Cell shall remain [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (6 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] present before the Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 29.10.2025. 7. List this case again on 29.10.2025.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the respondents in reduction of her marks is arbitrary and without any justifiable reason. He further submits that under the Scheme of Rules, 2010, there is no provision for re-evaluation/moderation of the answer sheets. He further submits that the exercise of the re- spondents in reducing her marks is in violation of Rules, 2010. He further submits that there is no procedure prescribed for awarding the marks in the Rules, 2010. He further submits that there is no policy decision taken by High Court for adopting the re-evaluation/ moderation of the answer sheets of the candidates. He further submits that grave injustice has been done with the petitioner by the respondents in reducing her marks and lastly, prayed for al- lowing the writ petition. 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the peti- tioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in the matter of Gajendra Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2847/2015) de- cided on 28.04.2015. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1985) 3 SCC 721, where in para No.13, it has been held as under:- “13. The question for consideration is whether the High Court in the circum- stances of this case had the power to add two marks to the marks obtained in each paper by way of moderation. It is no doubt, true that the High Court is en- trusted with the duty of conducting the competitive examination under Rule 13 of [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (7 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] the Rules. It is argued on behalf of the High Court that the power to conduct an examination includes the power to add marks either by way of moderation or by way of grace marks if it feels that it is necessary to do so, and reliance is placed by the High Court on its own past prac- tice, and the practice prevailing in a num- ber of universities in India, where marks are awarded either as moderation marks or as grace marks. It is true that in some educational institutions marks are awarded by way of moderation at an ex- amination if the examining body finds any defect in the examination conducted by it such as inclusion of questions in the ques- tion papers which are outside the syl- labus, extremely stiff valuation of the an- swer books by an examiner or any other reason relevant to the question papers or the valuation of the answer books. The reason given by the High Court for adding the moderation marks has nothing to do either with the question papers or with the mode of valuation. The High Court ap- proved the list of 27 candidates who had secured the required qualifying marks which would enable them to appear at the Viva Voce test as prescribed in the Appen- dix. Thereafter the High Court resolved to add two marks to the marks obtained in each paper by way of moderation on the ground that a few candidates who had otherwise secured very high marks may have to be kept out of the zone of consid- eration for final selection by reason of their having secured one or two marks be- low the aggregate or the qualifying marks prescribed in the particular paper. The res- olution does not show the names of the particular candidates considered at the meeting in whose case such a concession had to be shown. The affidavit filed on be- half of the High Court, of course, refers to certain hard cases which persuaded the High Court to add additional marks by way [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (8 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] of moderation. The question for decision is whether such a resolution can be passed by the High Court which is entrusted with the duty of conducting the examination. The High Court had not found any defect in the question papers or any irregularities in the valuation of the answer books. It may be that some candidates had ob- tained high marks in some papers and by reason of their not obtaining the required marks in the other papers or 60% and above in the aggregate they may not have become qualified for the Viva Voce test. In our opinion this alone would not be suffi- cient to add any marks by way of modera- tion. It is relevant to note the mandatory character of clause (6) in the Appendix to the Rules which says only such candidates will be called for Viva Voce who have ob- tained 50% marks in each written paper and 60% in the aggregate except in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes in whose case the qualifying marks will be 40% in each written paper and 50% in the aggregate. Addition of any marks by way of modera- tion to the marks obtained in any written paper or to the aggregate of the marks in order to make a candidate eligible to ap- pear in the Viva Voce test would indirectly amount to an amendment of clause (6) of the Appendix. Such amendment to the Rules can be made under Article 234 only by the Lt. Governor (Administrator) after consulting the High Court in that regard. In the instant case by resolving to add two marks to the marks obtained in each answer book by a candidate (sic) has vir- tually amended the Rules by substituting 48% in the place of 50% which is required to be secured in each written paper and 58% in the place of 60% which is required to be secured in the aggregate in the case of candidates not belonging to Scheduled Castes/Tribes and 38% in the place of 40% in each written paper and 48% in the [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (9 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] place of 50% in the aggregate in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Tribes. The adverse effect of the moderation on the candidates who had se- cured the required qualifying marks at the examination in question is quite obvious, since four candidates whose names were not in the list of 27 candidates published on the first occasion have been included in the first list of candidates chosen for ap- pointment from out of the final list of suc- cessful candidates in preference to some of the candidates who had obtained the qualifying marks in the written papers and they would have been appointed as Sub- Judges but for the interim order made by this Court. These four candidates were able to get in to the list of persons to be appointed as Sub-Judges because of the high marks they were able to secure at the Viva Voce test for which they were not eligible but for the moderation marks. The area of competition which the 27 candi- dates who had been declared as candi- dates eligible to appear at the Viva Voce examination before such moderation had to face became enlarged as they had to compete also against those who had not been so qualified according to the Rules. The candidates who appear at the exami- nation under the Delhi Judicial Service Rules acquire a right immediately after their names are included in the list pre- pared under Rule 16 of the Rules which limits the scope of competition and that right cannot be defeated by enlarging the said list by inclusion of certain other can- didates who were otherwise ineligible, by adding extra marks by way of moderation. In a competitive examination of this na- ture the aggregate of the marks obtained in the written papers and at the Viva Voce test should be the basis for selection. On reading Rule 16 of the Rules which merely lays down that after the written test the High Court shall arrange the names in or- [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (10 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] der of merit and these names shall be sent to the Selection Committee, we are of the view that the High Court has no power to include the names of candidates who had not initially secured the minimum qualifying marks by resorting to the de- vise of moderation, particularly when there was no complaint either about the question papers or about the mode of val- uation. Exercise of such power of modera- tion is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public ap- pointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the vi- olation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the cir- cumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court has no such power under the Rules. We are of the opinion that the list prepared by the High Court after adding the moderation marks is liable to be struck down. The first contention urged on behalf of the petitioners has, therefore, to be upheld. We, however, make it clear that the error committed by the High Court in this case following its past prac- tice is a bona fide one and is not prompted by any sinister consideration.” 8. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 720, where in para No.23, it has been held as under:- “When a large number of candidates ap- pear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valua- tion of the answer-scripts. Where the number of candidates taking the examina- tion are limited and only one examiner (preferably the paper-setter himself) eval- [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (11 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] uates the answer-scripts, it is to be as- sumed 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 dis- tribute 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 re- lating 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 exam- iners 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 marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who are strict, there may be vari- ance in the degree of strictness or liberal- ity. 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 an- swer-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 excel- lent answer-script. In other words, there is “reduced valuation” by a strict examiner and “enhanced valuation” by a liberal ex- aminer. This is known as “examiner vari- ability” 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 subjectiv- ity” or “examiner variability” is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce exam- iner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of moder- ation is as follows: [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (12 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] (i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head Exam- iner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior academi- cians/scholars/senior civil ser- vants/judges. Where the case is of a large number of candidates, more than one examiner is ap- pointed and each of them is allot- ted around 300 answer-scripts for valuation. (ii) To achieve uniformity in valua- tion, where more than one exam- iner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the exam- iners is held soon after the exami- nation. 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 val- uation 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 ar- rived at in regard to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examiners are required to complete the valuation of an- swer-scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about uniformity of assessment inter se the examin- ers. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to deviate from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is over- taken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or errati- cism or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary. (iii) After the valuation is com- pleted by the examiners, the Head Examiner conducts a ran- dom sample survey of the cor- rected answer-scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actu- ally been followed by the examin- [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (13 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] ers. The process of random sam- pling usually consists of scrutiny of some top level answer-scripts and some answer books selected at random from the batches of answer-scripts valued by each ex- aminer. The top level answer books of each examiner are reval- ued by the Head Examiner who carries out such corrections or al- terations 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 candi- dates 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 assess- ing the standards adopted by each examiner, the Head Exam- iner may confirm the award of marks without any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggests upward or downward moderation, the quan- tum of moderation varying ac- cording 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 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 made by the Head Examiner. (v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erratic or careless marking by any exam- iner, for 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 followed the agreed norms. [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (14 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] (vi) Where the number of candi- dates is very large and the exam- iners are numerous, it may be dif- ficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of all the examin- ers. In such a situation, one more level of examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examin- ers, there will be a Head 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. The above procedure of “moderation” would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that abso- lute uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity”. 9. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sujasha Mukherji Vs. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta Through Registrar & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.2051 of 2015 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27582 of 2014)] decided on 19.02.2015, where in paras No.8, 9, 10 & 11, it has been held as under:- 8. It appears to us to be uncontrovertibly comprehensible that the cornerstone, nay keystone, of the method of moderation enunciated by this Court in Sanjay Singh postulates the existence of a Head Exam- iner who is usually the paper-setter also. In this case the Respondents have neither asseverated nor established that a Head Examiner 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 multi- tude of questions suggested for the sub- ject. The fundamental predication of the paragraph 23(i) and (ii) of Sanjay Singh, [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (15 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] therefore, does not exist. Even if that were to be overlooked, 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. Quite evidently, the keystone on which the structure of Sanjay Singh had been painstakingly constructed, has been re- moved with the result that the edifice has crumbled down. It is not logical for the basic features to be ignored and there- after to follow other elements for that will become an incorrect extrapolation. Fur- thermore, we 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 re- quested learned Senior Counsel for the High Court to provide us with the curricu- lum 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 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. Further- more, we find that the marks awarded by the 1st Examiner have been left un- changed, except of cosmetic alterations. In fact, there mostly appears to be a vari- ation of nil or 0.5 marks after the modera- tion whereas large scale changes have been effected so far as the 2nd 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 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 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 numer- ous examiners it is but to be expected [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (16 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] that one may be more liberal when com- pared to another, who may even be strict, giving birth to the ‘hawk-dove’ effect, which has so perspicuously and graphi- cally been explained in Sanjay Singh. The avowed purpose behind moderation is to “to achieve uniformity”, to eradicate as far as possible the ‘hawk-dove’ effect. If mis- taking 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 mod- eration by definition cannot remove wide- spread mistakes. It appears to us that sub-para (iii) of Sanjay Singh 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 para- graph 23 of Sanjay Singh has to be under- taken 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 com- puting the ‘mean’ and, thereafter, to add or deduct, across the board, in all the An- swer–sheets. It cannot be disputed that this is not what has transpired in the present case since quite apparently mod- eration has been carried out in respect of the assessment/marking of the 2nd Exam- iner and that too in Paper No. II. So far as most of the candidates whose answer scripts had been reassessed afresh, the reduction averages 10 marks which, therefore, constitutes the mean. There- fore, 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 mod- erator should give a long and serious thought to the correctness of his assess- ment on the realization he finds that the top-most candidate stands disqualified by the purported exercise of moderation. As we have already noted above, instead of deducting 18 marks if even 15 marks had been deducted, the Appellant who has scored the highest marks before modera- tion and the second highest marks even after moderation, would have qualified for [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (17 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] being called to the Interview/viva voce. A grave injustice has been caused to the Ap- pellant. 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 observation. 10. On the first hearing of this matter, we had been informed by Mr. Gopal Subrama- nium, learned Senior Counsel that one va- cancy has been preserved during the pen- dency of the Writ Petition as well as the Appeal, which position we had ordered should continue. 11. The Appeal is allowed and the Im- pugned Judgment is set aside. Since an effort of moderation has been carried out we hold that a deduction of 10 marks be- ing the appropriate mean arrived at be deducted from the initial marks of 55 ob- tained by the Appellant in Paper II. De- spite this deduction the Appellant will re- main 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. We direct the Re- spondent-High Court to interview the Ap- pellant within one week from its receiving knowledge of this Judgment. The result thereof must be declared within one week thereafter. The Hon’ble Chief Justice shall ensure that the Interview Committee does not comprise any of the three Examiners. If the result remains unfavourable to the Appellant the post shall remain unfilled for a period of 30 days therefrom.” 10. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. V.K. Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the moderation is permissible in view of the judgment passed in the matter of Sanjay Singh & Anr. (supra). He further submits that the respondents have filed their reply and in para No.7, it has been stated as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (18 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] “In Para.7 of reply to the writ petition al- though the respondents have admitted the fact that changes/cuttings/interpola- tion have been made in the original marks awarded to the petitioner in Question No.18 to 22 of Law Paper-II, however in order to justify their action, it has been mentioned in the reply to the writ petition that for examining Question Paper cum Answer Booklets (QPAB) of Law Papers, all the evaluators were divided in different groups and each group was headed by the Head Examiner. In the instant case, Head Examiner found that excessive marks were given therefore as per the respon- dents the Head Examiner has reduced the marks awarded to the petitioner which were given by the Examiner in Question No.18 to 22 of Law Paper-II. In this re- gard, it is respectfully submitted that the process of appointing Head Examiner and for getting the Answer Book rechecked by Head Examiner is totally strange and un- known. It is respectfully submitted that such procedure has neither been men- tioned in Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 nor it has been part of the adver- tisement issued by the respondents for Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre Direct Re- cruitment Competitive Examination, 2018, therefore, by no stretch of imagination re- spondent could have adopted any criteria different than those mentioned in the Rules or in Advertisement. Such admission of changing the marks under the instruc- tions of Head Examiner makes it clear that in quite unauthorized and illegal manner the marks of the petitioner have been re- duced, which has caused grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the peti- tioner. Apart from above, reducing marks of only last 5 Questions mentioned in Law Paper-II continuously also puts a reason- able doubt over the method adopted by the respondents through such Head Ex- aminer. It is relevant to point out that without prejudice to the submissions made herein above, had there been any procedure for rechecking of the Answer Book through Head Examiner then cer- tainly the Question No.1 of Law Paper-II [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (19 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] as well as Question No.12 would have also been re-examined and rechecked by the Head Examiner and in case answers sub- mitted by the petitioner are re- assessed, then it would come out prima facie that the answers given by the petitioner do not deserve 0 marks. Thus, even if there was some Head Examiner the method of reex- amining &/or rechecking adopted by him was not just and fair. The respondents have also not mentioned that in case of any other candidate also such procedure of reducing marks through Head Examiner was adopted by them or not. Under these circumstances where the process of rechecking through Head Examiner was adopted against the Rules and provisions of advertisement, the original marks given to the petitioner by the original examiner are required to computed and in case such original marks are taken into considera- tion then the petitioner's marks in Law Pa- per- II would increased to 51.5 and con- sequently the aggregate marks would also increased to 154.5 instead of 147.5. Since admittedly the cut off marks of the last selected candidate are 152, therefore, pe- titioner is entitled for appointment pur- suant to advertisement dated 15.11.2018 (Annexure-A1) by giving all the conse- quential benefits which have been given to the last candidate. 11. He further submits that large number of candidates appeared in the examination and the High Court has adopted the same procedure for awarding the marks and while applying the modera- tion, the Head Examiner reduced the marks not only of the peti- tioner but the same procedure has been followed for all other sim- ilarly situated candidates. He further submits that there is no alle- gation of mala fide in conducting the selection process on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition. He further submits that more particularly, the respondents in their reply have justified their action in adopting the moderation. He further submits that in compliance of the order dated 12.09.2024, an additional affidavit [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (20 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] has been filed on behalf of the High Court, in para No.4 of the said affidavit, it has been stated as under:- “That during the process of evaluation of QPABs of Main Examination to the cadre of Civil Judge, 2018, modification had been made in respect of other candidates also where the Head Examiner after re- examination QPABs found that modifica- tion was required as per the norms and it was not a solitary case of the petitioner.” 12. He further submits that the moderation of the marks during the process of selection has been made for the other candidates also where the Head Examiner after re-examination of answer-sheets found that it was required as per the norms. The counsel produced before us today the relevant record for perusal in compliance of the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and after perusing some of the answer-sheets, we found that the same exercise has been done in respect of other candidates also of reducing the marks by the Head Examiner. After perusal the said record has been returned in sealed cover to the learned counsel for the respondents. 13. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Taniya Malik Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi reported in (2018) 14 SCC 129, where in para No.12, it has been held as under:- “12.First we take up the question whether moder- ation is required to be ordered. Moderation is an appropriate method to bring about uniformity in evaluation. When several examiners manually evaluate answer scripts of respective/conventional type question papers in regard to the same sub- [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (21 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] ject, moderation is adopted as a method to reduce examiner's variability. For the purpose of issuance of direction for moderation reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Sanjay Singh [Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Com- mission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 870] in which, it was observed: (SCC pp. 739-41 & 743, paras 23 & 27) “23. When a large number of candidates appear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in val- uation of the answer scripts. Where the number of candidates taking the exami- nation 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 dis- tribute 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 re- lating 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 exam- iners 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 [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (22 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who are strict, there may be variance in the degree of strictness or lib- erality. This means that if the same an- swer script is given to different examin- ers, there is all likelihood of different marks being assigned. If a very well-writ- ten answer script goes to a strict exam- iner 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 ef- fect”. Therefore, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the examiners so that the effect of “ex- aminer subjectivity” or “examiner vari- ability” is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of moderation is as fol- lows: (i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head Examiner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior academicians/schol- ars/senior civil servants/Judges. Where the case is of a large number of candidates, more than one exam- iner is appointed and each of them is allotted around 300 answer scripts for valuation. (ii) To achieve uniformity in valua- tion, 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 as- pects of the answers. They also carry [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (23 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The sample valua- tion of scripts by each of them is re- viewed by the Head Examiner and variations in assigning marks are fur- ther discussed. After such discus- sions, a consensus is arrived at in re- gard to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examin- ers are required to complete the val- uation of answer scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about unifor- mity of assessment inter se the ex- aminers. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to de- viate from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or erraticism or careless- ness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary. (iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head Exam- iner conducts a random sample sur- vey of the corrected answer scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have ac- tually been followed by the examin- ers. The process of random sampling usually consists of scrutiny of some top-level answer scripts and some answer books selected at 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 pur- pose, if necessary certain statistics like distribution of candidates in vari- ous marks ranges, the average per- [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (24 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] centage of marks, the highest and lowest award of marks, etc. may also be prepared in respect of the valua- tion of each examiner.) (iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by each ex- aminer, the Head Examiner may con- firm the award of marks without any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggests up- ward or downward moderation, the quantum of moderation varying ac- cording 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 accepted as final. As re- gards the other answer books below the top level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the awards are moder- ated as per the recommendations made by the Head Examiner. (v) If in the opinion of the Head Ex- aminer there has been erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the answer scripts valued by such examiner are revalued either by the Head Exam- iner or any other examiner who is found to have followed the agreed norms. (vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of all the examiners. In such a situa- tion, one more level of examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head Ex- aminer who checks the random sam- ples as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (25 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] Chief Examiner to ensure proper re- sults. The above procedure of “moderation” would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or con- sistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity. 27. But some examining authorities, like the Com- mission are of the view that scaling can be used, not only where there is a need to find a common base across different subjects (that is bringing the performance in different subjects to a common scale), but also as an alternative to moderation, to reduce examiner variability (that is where different examiners evaluate answer scripts relating to the same subject).” 14. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner after participating in the selection process has filed the present writ petition challenging the selection process, which is not permissible in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the mat- ter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 357, secondly, the respondents have lawfully applied the moderation in awarding the marks to the candidates who appeared in the main examination in view of the judgment passed in the matter of Sanjay Singh & Anr. (supra), thirdly, this Court after perusal of the original record is satisfied that the same action has been done by the High Court Court in relation to the other candidates also; fourthly, reply to para No.7 as well as para No.4 of the additional affidavit sub- [2026:RJ-JP:6685-DB] (26 of 26) [CW-10027/2020] mitted by the High Court, also shows that they have appointed the Head Examiner and the same treatment has been done with all the candidates and none other than the petitioner has challenged the selection process on this ground, lastly, the selection process relates to the year 2018 and thereafter, the High Court has con- ducted three further recruitments for the post of Civil Judge, therefore, in the larger interest of the selected candidates, we are not inclined to interfere in the selection process. 16. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed. All the pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /2