In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court resolved a five-year struggle for justice, ordering the appointment of a 33-year-old woman, Janhvi, as a civil judge in Uttar Pradesh. Her battle revolved around a discrepancy of two marks in the 2018 Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination.
The Court found that Janhvi, a candidate from the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, had been wrongfully denied her rightful place in the judiciary due to an examiner’s miscalculation. The Division Bench directed her immediate appointment to a vacant post with seniority benefits aligned with her original batch.
A Fight for Fair Evaluation
Janhvi’s journey began in 2020 when she discovered an error in her English language paper. Although she had been marked 23 for a précis question, the examiner recorded 21 as the final score. The discrepancy cost her a position, as she fell two marks short of the required 475 for her category.
The Court, reviewing the examiner’s reasoning, dismissed it as untenable. “Instead of acknowledging the error, the examiner defended his mistake, denying fair evaluation to the petitioner,” the judgment stated.
A Decisive Ruling
In its November review, the Court recalculated her score, bringing her total to 475, qualifying her for selection. Despite the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) expressing procedural difficulties, the Court insisted that she be appointed immediately, even if a supernumerary post needed to be created.
Janhvi was also granted notional seniority and other consequential benefits, except arrears of salary. The judges emphasized her eligibility, stating, “She has 27 years of active service ahead, and her entitlement cannot be ignored.”
A Case of Systemic Oversight
The UPPSC admitted to anomalies in the 2018 examination, which led to the removal of 11 examiners from its panel. However, the examiner involved in Janhvi’s case remained unaddressed. The Court criticized this lack of accountability, urging stricter compliance with constitutional principles to prevent similar grievances.
A Long Road to Justice
Janhvi’s perseverance highlighted the systemic challenges faced by aspirants. The Court acknowledged that initial setbacks often leave candidates grappling with disappointment and uncertainty. Despite these hurdles, Janhvi pursued her case with diligence, filing a writ petition within three years of discovering the error.
Moving Forward
This decision not only restores Janhvi’s career prospects but also underscores the importance of fairness and accountability in public examinations. The ruling sets a precedent, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not deter genuine merit.
By correcting a small but significant error, the Allahabad High Court has ensured that one woman’s dream of serving justice is finally realized.
