Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11058 OF 2025
Kartiki Awantika .. Petitioner
WRIT PETITION NO. 11059 OF 2025
Shruti Hemant Wade .. Petitioner.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 11198 OF 2025
Patil Naresh Dongar …Petitioner.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 11753 OF 2025
Amit Arun Londhe … Petitioner.
Mr. Abhijeet Desai a/w Ms. Mohini A. Rehpade, Mr. Vijay Singh, Smt. Daksha Punghera & Mr. Karan Gajra i/b Desai Legal LLP, Advocates for the petitioner in all the above writ petitions.
Mr.O.A.Chandurkar, Addl. Government Pleader a/w Mrs. Pooja
Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State in Writ Petition Nos. 11058 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.11198 of 2025.
Mrs. Pooja Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State in Writ Petition
No.11059 of 2025.
Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State in Writ
Petition No.11753 of 2025.
Mr.Ashutosh M. Kulkarni a/w Mr.Sarthak Diwan & Ms.Meghana
Chavan, Advocates for the Respondent No.2-MPSC in all the above
Dr.Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Rahul Nerlekar &
Ms.Amruta Nerlekar, Advocates for the Respondent No.3-Bombay
High Court in all the above writ petitions.
JUDGMENT
2. The prayers in Writ Petition No. 11753 of 2025 are reproduced below:- “(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondents to furnish to the Petitioner the copies of his evaluated answer sheets pertaining to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Competitive Main Examination-2022; (b) Declare that the action of Respondents in unilaterally disposing of his RTI Application for providing the evaluated answer sheets to the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the Respondents to Moderate/re-evaluate the answer sheet of the Petitioner for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Competitive Main Examination–2022 and accordingly correct the marks awarded, in the interest of justice and fairness.
(d) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondent No.2 to re-evaluate and recalculate the merit list by correctly applying the Priority Order criteria under clause 6.5.1, particularly considering the Petitioner’s MBA degree dated 2015 instead of LL.M. degree dated 2020 for determining his priority ranking, and to place the Petitioner at his correct and rightful position in the merit list and declare him selected for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate (First Class). (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to keep one post vacant in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Competitive Main Examination-2022, until the final disposal of the present matter; (f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to preserve the answer sheets of the Petitioner for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Competitive Main Examination-2022 and stay any further recruitment process based on the results of the said examination until the moderation/ reevaluation of the Petitioner’s Answer sheets is completed, in the interest of justice and equity. (g) Ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d), (e), and any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of Justice. (h) Award costs of this Petition in favour of the Petitioner.
(i) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. These petitioners who could not make to the select list of the qualified candidates published by the respondent no.2 are seeking a direction to the respondent-Authority to furnish them their answerbooks. The petitioners have taken a plea that the decision of the respondent-Authority not to provide the answer-books through RTI is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioners state that such decision of the respondent-Authority is violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Raising such grounds, Kartiki Awantika has laid a challenge to the orders dated 17th April 2025 and 21st April 2025 passed by the Nodal Officer, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and the appellate order dated 21st July 2025 in Writ Petition No.11058 of
2025. Shruti Hemant Wade has challenged the order dated 30th July 2025 passed by Nodal Officer, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Writ Petition No. 11059 of 2025. Patil Naresh Dongar seeks to challenge the order dated 17th June 2025 passed by the Public Information Officer and Additional Secretary, Maharahtra Public Service Commission, Navi Mumbai in Writ Petition No. 11198 of
2025. Similarly, Amit Arun Londhe has challenged the order dated 16th April 2025 passed by the Nodal Officer, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Writ Petition No.11753 of 2025. These petitioners refer to the order passed in Writ Petition No.7439 of 2025 and seek a direction to the respondent-Authority to permit them to inspect his/her answer-books for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Competitive Mains Examination-
2022.
4. The petitioners who participated in the written examination pursuant to Advertisement No.040 of 2024 for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) were called for interview. They were included in the general merit list but were not selected because they could not reach the cutoff marks. According to the petitioners, the marking pattern by the examiners was quite irregular and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7439 of 2025 wherein this Court made an observation that evaluation of the answer-book was done in a perfunctory manner and without any individualized assessment of the answer-books. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to several paragraphs in the said case wherein this Court observed as under: - “5.As regards moderation of answer-sheet, learned counsel for respondent No.2-MPSC submits that the same is permissible only for such students who have obtained marks in the range of 40 to
50. It is submitted that the petitioner got 51 marks in civil paper and 55 in criminal paper and therefore, this Court cannot direct moderation or re-evaluation of the petitioner’s answer-sheets.
6. We have perused the answer-sheets of the petitioner and find that in the civil answer-sheet, all the 12 questions carrying 4 marks are given 2 marks each and all the 4 questions carrying 8 marks are given 4 marks each. We thus find that such evaluation of civil answer-sheet is done in a perfunctory manner and without an individualised assessment of the petitioner’s answers. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, by way of interim order we therefore, direct respondent No.2-MPSC to conduct moderation of the civil answer-sheet of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent No.2 shall submit the result in a sealed envelope to this Court on the next date.
7. We will consider the submission of respondent No.2-MPSC on merit after the result of moderation of the civil answer-sheet is submitted to this Court.
8. List the petition on 31st July 2025.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-MPSC submits that to enable the respondent No.2 to challenge this order, it be stayed for a period of four weeks. However in the facts and circumstances of the case the request is rejected.”
5. The relevant rules under the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 are reproduced hereunder:-
6. The method of recruitment, qualification and age limit for the District Judges and Civil Judge (Junior Division) are provided under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rule, 2008. Rule 6(3)(a) provides that a list of candidates eligible for the appointment shall be prepared in the order of merit on the basis of the cumulative marks secured by the candidates. It further provides that the select list shall include the name of the candidates equal to the number of vacancies as on the date of the examination. Rule 6(3)(b) provides that there shall be wait list of the candidates equal in number to 10% of the number of vacancies notified for recruitment subject to a minimum of one candidate in the waiting list. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no restriction under the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 to make available the answer sheet to a candidate and the High Court may direct a fresh evaluation of answer sheet in appropriate cases. The learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to “Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee”1 to contend that the writ Court may permit a candidate to see the answerbook to avoid grave injustice which may occasion if there is a calculation error. In “Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further referred to “Aditya Bandopadhyay”2 and contended that it would not breach confidentiality, privacy, secrecy or trust if the petitioners are permitted to see their answer-book. In “Aditya Bandopadhyay”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -
8. In “Islamic Academy of Education”3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment has to be found out only on a reading of entire judgment and that can be ascertained only with the context in mind of what was set out in the judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that one cannot find the ratio decidendi of the judgment just by reading here and there
2. Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497
3. Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 697 from the judgment. A decision is required to be read and understood in the context of the facts and statutory provisions therein and not like a statute of the Parliament. In “Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited & Anr.”4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: - “31. It is well settled that an order of a court must be construed having regard to the text and context in which the same was passed. For the said purpose, the judgment of this Court is required to be read in its entirety. A judgment, it is well settled, cannot be read as a statute. Construction of a judgment should be made in the light of the factual matrix involved therein. What is more important is to see the issues involved therein and the context wherein the observations were made. Observation made in a judgment, it is trite, should not be read in isolation and out of context. On perusal of para 10 of the judgment, it is abundantly clear that even under the 1991 Notification which is the main notification, it was stipulated that all development and activities within CRZ will be valid and will not violate the provisions of the 1991 Notification till the management plans are approved. Thus, the intention of legislature while issuing the Notification of 1991 was to protect the past actions/transactions which came into existence before the approval of the 1991 Notification.”
9. In “Ambica Quarry Works & Anr.”5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a decision has to be understood in the background of the facts of that case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: -
10. Quite clearly, the ratio decidendi in a case is ascertained by an
4. “Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.” (2010) 5 SCC 388
5. Ambica Quarry Works & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 213 analysis of the facts of the case. The process of reasoning involves measuring premises, a pre-existing rule of law and the material facts of the case. Strictly speaking, the decisions in Writ Petition No. 1685 of 2023 titled “Nitish s/o Anil Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” and Writ Petition No.7439 of 2025 titled “Shraddha Mahesh Rathod v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.” do not constitute the precedents and were rendered in the facts and circumstances of the case. These decisions do not lay down a law that the writ Court must exercise its powers and direct the examination body to permit the aggrieved candidate to see his answer-book. The orders passed in these decisions do not say that dehors the extant Rules a writ of mandamus shall be issued even where the Rules do not permit re-evaluation or re-calculation of the marks in the answer-book. This is quite basic in law that a mandamus shall not lie if a person does not have an enforceable right flowing from the Statute, Rules or Government Notification/Circular. Etymologically, the expression “mandamus” means a direction which the writ Court may issue to the respondent- Authority where a person has a legal right in law and a corresponding duty is cast on the respondent-Authority. In “Smt. A. Lakshmikutty”,[6] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -
11. The writ Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a case where it is prima-facie demonstrable that it would occasion a failure of justice if the Court does not grant indulgence in the matter. In a competitive examination where thousands of candidates participate, it poses a serious challenge before the writ Court how to exercise its writ jurisdiction when a candidate, who missed the cut-off marks just by a whisker, contends that there may be error in evaluation of his answer-book. The sanctity of the competitive examination is to be maintained and a writ cannot be issued to satisfy every doubt of the aggrieved candidate. There is no doubt that a writ is an extraordinary remedy and the writ Court exercises plenary jurisdiction. This is also well settled that the writ Court is not bound by the technicalities and shall provide relief to the aggrieved person in appropriate cases. In “Tirtha Sarthi Mukherjee”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court takes note to a situation where no marks are awarded for the correct answer. There may also be a situation where a correct answer is treated as a wrong answer. Observing that if there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer, the writ court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to avoid grave injustice to a candidate. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicated further rider that any doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body. Therefore, having regard to the judicial discipline and propriety which has a universal application for maintaining uniformity in the judicial system, we shall permit the petitioners to peruse their answer-books only for the purpose as indicated in “Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee”.
12. Writ Petitions Nos.11058 of 2025, 11059 of 2025, 11198 of 2025 and 11753 of 2025 are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]