'Can't Step Into Evaluator's Shoes, Assessment Is Subjective': Gujarat HC Rejects Plea For Re-Evaluation In District Judge Promotion Process

The Gujarat High Court has observed that assessment of judicial officers' decisions for the purpose of promotion is a subjective exercise and it would be impossible to maintain uniformity in such assessments, adding that questioning the same would dent the sanctity of the recruitment process. 

It further observed that if the officer's annual confidential reports (ACR) are relied on to question the assessment of the officer's judgments (which is conducted by the high court) and marks in the assessment are allotted based on the ACR, then it would be an "anathema to the recruitment process". 

A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi in its order observed,

"We may, at this stage, clarify that the judgments of each of the Civil Judges are different and the assessors-evaluaters of the judgments, which has been done by the High Court, are also different. It is not that all the judgments, which are tendered by the Civil Judges, are common dealing with particular law. The Civil Judges, on their own wisdom, looking to their own assessment, send their best judgments. However, the same are to be assessed by the High Court by examining the peculiar facts, appreciation of evidence proper application of provisions of law. The parameters, suggested by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, would not apply in the present case as the judgments, which are sent, are unique and different corresponding to a particular Judge. The assessment is also not done by a single assessor, but it has been evenly distributed amongst the evaluators. Thus, in this case, it is impossible to maintain uniformity as the assessment of the judgments would be subjective depending on various aspects on which the judgement is premised".

The court said that the candidates would definitely feel that what they have sent is of their best ability and they would expect 100% marks from these judgments. However, the High Court, while examining such judgments, "is not swayed away by the expectation of a Civil Judge, when he sends such judgment", it said.

The assessment has been done by an individual assessor and the judgments are also not common, and the assessment is also subjective in nature the court said.

"At this stage, looking to these facts and the entire mechanism, there is no scope of accepting the mechanism of moderation, as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sujasha Mukherjee (supra)," the court added.

The observation was made in plea moved by a Principal Senior Civil Judge challenging the high court's assessment of his judgments under the fourth component of the recruitment process for promotion to the post of District Judge under the 65% quota.

The petitioner had successfully cleared the written test and qualified in the assessment of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and case disposal rates. However, he failed to qualify in the fourth component - the evaluation of judgments - having obtained 41 out of 60 marks, which was below the minimum required threshold.

The petitioner argued that one of the judgments he submitted in the current selection process had also been part of his earlier application, where it had been assessed more favourably. He alleged arbitrariness and lack of uniformity in the evaluation and urged the Court to allow re-evaluation.

He placed reliance on the Supreme Court decisions, including Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta (2015), Sanjay Singh v. UPPSC (2007), and Pranav Verma v. Registrar General, Punjab & Haryana High Court (2020), arguing for the application of moderation or standardisation mechanisms.

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Dr.B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra vs. Devarsh Nath Gupta & Ors (2023) on assessment of answer sheet, the bench further said:

“Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the award of the marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner / evaluator. Same analogy has to be adopted in the matter of assessment of judgments. The appellant cannot claim his right of declaring him successful on the substratum of one common judgment. The assessment of three other judgements has independent assessment value, and has no bearing on one judgment which was common. If such analogy is adopted then, in the written examination also his marks are also required to be allocated on the premise of earlier recruitment process”.

The Court, noted that judicial officers submit different judgments, based on their discretion and case records, which are individually assessed by different evaluators.

It also rejected the petitioner's reliance on his past ACRs, which had consistently rated him as "outstanding." It clarified that there is no correlation between ACRs and judgment evaluation scores.

“The entries in the Confidential Report do not have any nexus in awarding marks on the assessment of judgments. Both the components operate in different realm,” the Court said.

It further cautioned that accepting such a contention would render the judgment assessment process futile, “If the submission advanced by the petitioner is accepted, then the entire exercise for calling upon the judgments from the Civil Judges and its assessment will be a futile exercise, and the marks of fourth component can be directly allocated on the basis of the Confidential Reports, and there would not be any need for assessment of judgments. Such an approach will be an anathema to the recruitment process.”

Accordingly, the Court held, “In the present set of facts, we cannot step into the shoes of the assessor-evaluator, who has assessed the judgments of the petitioner on his subjective satisfaction and has allotted the marks. The questioning of the assessment of the judgments will have serious adverse consequences, and will dent the sanctity of the process of recruitment.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 52