SC reserves order in Haryana judicial services exam case
The Supreme Court Tuesday reserved the order on the evaluation methodology adopted in the main examination of Haryana Judicial Service 2017 for selection of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
In May this year, the apex court had asked retired apex court judge, Justice A. K. Sikri to look into the evaluation methodology, and submit a report on it.
Justice Sikri, in the report, said that the marking in the civil law exam, which was majorly descriptive, was very strict and the paper was too lengthy to complete within the stipulated time.
The apex court had observed that 1,200 candidates appeared in main exams in Haryana, and only nine were able to qualify for the interview.
A petition has been filed in the top court challenging the selection and evaluation process in the Main Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch), 2017. The petitioners claimed there is discrepancy in the process of selection and top candidates who were selected in other state-level exams could not qualify in Haryana.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioners said the scaling and moderation method, which is statistical in nature, should be adopted to resolve this issue.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S. A. Bobde asked if this methodology has ever been adopted in a judicial exam. Bhushan replied it is being used by the UPSC. The court reckoned that the judicial exam is completely different in nature, and apparently this statistical methodology may not work. The court has reserved the order on this matter.
Earlier, a bench headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said: "What have you done? You found only nine candidates eligible for interview," asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court's registrar general.
In order to get clarity on the matter, the top court appointed recently retired Supreme Court judge A. K. Sikri to examine some answer sheets, and then make an assessment, whether the court should accept the concerned evaluation. The court had earlier said no appointments should be made without its permission.