The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) to conduct moderation of the civil law answer-sheet of a candidate in the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Competitive Exam, citing perfunctory evaluation and lack of individualized assessment.
The writ petition was filed by petitioner who had secured 106 marks in the main written examination and 34 in the interview, totaling 140 marks, and was ranked 194 in the General Merit List. Dissatisfied with her civil paper scores, she sought re-evaluation or moderation of her answer-sheets.
A division bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice N.R. Borkar, after perusing the answer-sheets produced by MPSC, observed that all 12 short-answer questions (4 marks each) were uniformly awarded 2 marks, and all 4 long-answer questions (8 marks each) were awarded 4 marks. The Court held that such uniform marking suggests a mechanical and non-application-based evaluation, necessitating moderation.
While Rule 11(2) of MPSC’s regulations prohibits re-evaluation, and moderation is typically reserved for candidates scoring between 40–50 marks, the Court carved out an exception, stating that in the present case, the mechanical nature of the marking merited intervention.
The Court directed MPSC to undertake moderation within two weeks and submit the result in a sealed envelope. The petition will be taken up next on July 31, 2025. The Court also declined MPSC’s request to stay the order, citing the facts and circumstances of the case.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Abhijit A. Desai a/w. Mr. Digvijay S. Kachare a/w. Ms Mohini Rehpade, Ms Daksha Punghera, Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Karan Gajra i/b Desai Legal LLP for the Petitioner.
Respondents: Smt. Reena A. Solunkhe, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Siddharth Shitole for Respondent No.2-MPSC.
Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Saket Tare for Respondent No.3.