Allahabad High Court orders woman’s appointment as civil judge after 5-year battle for two marks

The Allahabad High Court recently ordered appointment of a 33-year-old woman as a civil judge in Uttar Pradesh, concluding her five-year battle for the two marks she was denied in 2019 [Janhvi vs State of UP and 2 Others]..A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh said the judicial appointment had been denied to the Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate for no fault of hers. “As on date, the petitioner is only 33 years of age. She would still have 27 years of active service, from today. We find, the petitioner is wholly entitled to the relief of appointment to UPPCS (J) 2018. Subject to due verification, let the petitioner be granted appointment to UPPCS (J), 2018 against one available vacant post with notional security and all consequential benefits except arrears of salary,” the Court ordered..Considering the six-year delay since the judicial exam for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) post was held, the Court clarified that a supernumerary post be created for her in case such need arises“Let petitioner be placed at seniority position of her batch (2018) as she may have earned against marks secured,” the Court further ordered..The candidate, Janhvi, moved the High Court in 2021 for re-calculation of marks awarded to her in the English language paper of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2018.Her claim was that she had secured 88 marks in the English paper but only 86 marks were awarded to her. Interestingly, the total marks awarded to her were 473. As a Scheduled Caste (candidate), she needed 475 marks for selection..Her writ petition remained pending for over three years and was finally heard last month. The Court on November 21 went through Janhvi’s answer book along with the opinion of the examiner. The answer book revealed that on the left margin of her answer book at page 12, marks 22 had been awarded for an answer. Then a little below the same, an additional mark 1 had been awarded against the title given by her.Both marks - 22 and 1 - had been circled by the examiner. But towards the right margin, marks 21 were written and circled by the examiner. “Prima facie, it clearly appears that 22 marks were awarded by the examiner to the petitioner for the precis written by her and 1 mark was awarded for the title to the precis, given by her. Thus, total marks that were earned by the petitioner were 23 marks. Perhaps due to calculation error, those have been wrongly mentioned as 21 marks,” the Court said last month..However, the examiner’s explanation was 21 marks be treated as final. He said the marks 22 and 1 on the left-hand margin were for his personal reference.The Court rejected the explanation. “Prima facie, we note, instead of admitting the mistake and allowing the benefit of fair marks awarded to the petitioner arising to her, the examiner Associate Professor G.D. Dubey has tried to defend his mistake on wholly untenable reasoning,” it said.Concluding that Janhvi had secured 475 marks, the Court then asked Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPSSC) to file an affidavit on further course of action in the matter..On December 5, the UPPSC admitted that certain anomalies had been detected after the 2018 exam, leading to debarring of 11 examiners from the panel of examiner. However, it did not include Professor Dubey.It was also submitted that the Commission had always acted in a bonafide manner and provided an opportunity to Janhvi to go through her answer books in 2020 itself. On whether to appoint her, the UPSSC expressed helplessness at this stage..Considering the facts of the case, the Court said Janhvi was entitled to be selected and recommended her appointment at the time of declaration of the final result itself, on the strength of cut-off marks obtained by her.“Considering the fact, she is the eldest of the first three candidates recommended under the Reserved Category - (Scheduled Caste) belonging to female category, against equal marks achieved by her, the petitioner's name should have been recommended first under that category as may have allowed her natural seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division). That relief and status was denied to the petitioner for no fault. Therefore, she is found entitled to relief,” it said..On granting her relief at the belated stage, the Court noted that one post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is still available as against the selection process of 2018.It further said Janhvi had no reason to suspect that she had been wronged, noting that she had first applied for inspection of her answer books under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2020 and on getting to know about award of less marks, filed the present petition within 90 days..It further said that the burden to conduct the selection process in due compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India rest solely with the State government and UPPSC."Therefore, if the petitioner did not immediately act upon declaration of the final result on 20.07.2019, it cannot be said that petitioner did not act with due diligence or the petitioner acted with any amount of inherent negligence,” it added..The Court also opined that an unsuccessful young candidate requires time to deal with the sense of the immediate failure that may visit them. She would have taken time to seek due consultation and guidance with family, friends and lawyers to discover the path to her remedies, it added..Advocate Siddharth Khare represented the petitioner.Senior Advocate GK Singh with advocate MN Singh represented the UPSSC.Additional Chief Standing Counsel Kritika Singh represented the State. Advocate Ashish Mishra represented the State. .[Read Judgment]