Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214
1 WP-10390-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10390 of 2016
PANKAJ SINGH BAGHEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner Nos.1 & 9.
None for other petitioners.
Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 12050 of 2016
BALRAM YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.K. Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Kumar Mishra -
Advocate for the petitioner No.2.
None for the other petitioners.
Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 203 of 2017
ARVIND SINGH THAKUR AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioners.
Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 1921 of 2017
UMA SHANKAR VISHWAKARMA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 27-09-2025
17:46:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214
2 WP-10390-2016
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitya Nand Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 4211 of 2017
DR. GAURAV KUMAR SAXENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitya Nand Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 5536 of 2017
MANISH KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitya Nand Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
ORDER
This order shall govern disposal of aforesaid writ petitions.
2. In this batch of petitions, challenge is made to corrigendum dated 20.11.2015 by which according to the petitioners, while changing the rules of game during the mid process, scaling method to evaluate the merit was introduced by the respondent.
3. According to the facts which are identical in all the cases, an advertisement dated 30.12.2014 was issued by M.P. Public Service Commission for conducting the examination and selection for the post of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 3 WP-10390-2016 Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger. The advertisement was followed by corrigendum dated 20.11.2015 i.e. almost after 11 months and by corrigendum it was informed that scaling method would be taken recourse to for preparation of the list for interview. The said corrigendum was issued after issuance of initial advertisement. The initial advertisement does not contain any methodology pertaining to scaling for preparation of the list, on the contrary, as per the advertisement, the list was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the examination in order of merit. The petitioners appeared in the examination. However, they were not selected despite the fact that they had scored higher marks than the selected candidates and this anomaly crept up on account of following scaling method which was introduced by way of corrigendum during the mid of the selection process. According to the petitioners, the present petitioners despite having scored more marks than the candidates so selected have been deprived of the appointment. The petitioners have submitted details of marks in the memorandum of petition. One such petition is WP No.10390 of 2016 and in paragraph 5.6 of the same, there is a table in which the marks scored by the selected candidates have been mentioned and the marks scored by the petitioners have been mentioned and as per paragraph 5.6, the marks obtained by the present petitioners were more than selected candidates. However, according to the petitioners, on account of method of scaling, the petitioners have been deprived of the selection against the post for which the advertisement was issued. Thus, questioning the corrigendum and the entire process of scaling method, this petition is filed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 4 WP-10390-2016 4 . Learned senior counsel Shri Dixit submits that it is a case where rules of game were changed after the players entered into arena. As per the senior counsel, an advertisement was issued on 30.12.2014. The advertisement nowhere contained that the scaling method was to be taken recourse to in order to prepare select/merit list. As per the advertisement, the list was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in order of merit. However, subsequently, the corrigendum was issued and by way of said corrigendum, the scaling method was introduced. The introduction of the scaling method have not been approved by the State Government in terms of Rule 8 of Madhya Pradesh State Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1977. There has to be approval of the State Government before introducing any method for the purposes of selection of employees. In the present case, there was no approval. It is also contended by Shri Dixit that an attempt has been made by the respondent to demonstrate that the said method was introduced in view of the report of the expert committee. However, there was no order by the State Government to constitute any expert committee to introduce the said method. It is thus contended by learned senior counsel that the entire process stood vitiated on account of change of rules of game when the players entered into arena. It is also contended by learned senior counsel that this Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 issued direction to the respondent to come up with the documents on record. However, the said order is also not complied with. Hence, it is contended by the counsel that in the light of decision of Apex Court in the case of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 5 WP-10390-2016 reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 , the corrigendum deserves to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled to be appointed having scored more marks than the selected candidates. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540 and in the case of Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and others passed in SLP (Civil) No.17747/2023 vide judgment dated 09.04.2025 . It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that mere participation in the examination does not preclude the petitioners from assailing the corrigendum as corrigendum being a nullity, petitioners cannot be deprived of under the garb of principle of estoppel or acquiescence or waiver to challenge such a corrigendum which is non est .
5. Learned counsel Shri Vikas Mishra submits that the petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. It is a case where scaling process which is a disputed process could not have been taken recourse to. It is contended by the counsel that the Apex Court vide order dated 09.01.2007 passed in W.P. (Civil) No.165/2005 in the case of Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another dealt with the scaling process and concluded that the scaling process was unsuited in regard to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination while exhaustively dealing with scaling process in paragraph 34 to 40 of the judgment. It is also contended by the counsel that a chart prepared by the petitioner clearly reveals that the petitioners scored more marks than the candidates so selected and this could not have been done as there was vast difference in the actual marks which were scored by the petitioners than the marks which were Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 6 WP-10390-2016 scored by the selected candidates. It is contended by the counsel that in paragraph 5.6 of W.P. No.10390/2016, a table has been reproduced containing marks obtained by candidates and as per the said table, it is evident that the scaling process was faulty. Counsel also submits that additional submissions brought on record by the respondent vide I.A. No.4692/2025 which contains the forged document as the document which is contained in Annexure AR/1 with the aforesaid I.A. is not identical to the same document which has been filed by the present petitioners vide his reply to the said submission dated 26.03.2025. Counsel has also taken this Court to Document No.13873/2016 and submits that perusal of the aforesaid reflects that the scaling method could not have been introduced in the mid process by the respondent.
6 . Per contra, counsel for the PSC submits that the petitions filed by petitioners deserve to be dismissed. It is contended by the counsel that the same corrigendum assailed by another candidate namely Sadhna Chouhan. The matter came up for consideration before this Court in WP No.20740/2016 (Sadhan Chouhan v. M.P. Public Service Commission). The coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.08.2019 dismissed the petition while holding that the corrigendum in the case in hand was issued on 20.11.2015 whereas the examination was conducted on 05.01.2016 and then the result was declared. Thus, coordinate Bench held that corrigendum having been issued before the conduct of examination, it could not have been said that there was any attempt to change the rules of game during mid process. Hence, submits that petition is liable to be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 7 WP-10390-2016 7 . Counsel for the PSC further submits that it is a case where the petitioners are making an effort while taking recourse to a complete volte face having participated in the process. Once the petitioners found that they were unsuccessful, they have filed these petitions questioning the corrigendum on the ground that the same amounts to change in rules of the game after the players entered into arena. Counsel also submits that the petitioners having participated in the examination are barred by the principle of estoppel and in support of his contention counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 . The reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra). It is also contended by the counsel that the scaling method has also been held to be valid by the Apex Court in the case of Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. Union Public Service Commissioner and others in SLP (Civil No.11977/2012 vide order dated 20.02.2013 , hence, submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned senior counsel Shri Dixit in rejoinder arguments submits that it is not only a case where the rules of game were changed and the corrigendum is being disputed but the petitioners are also disputing the faulty scaling method. It is contended by the senior counsel that pleadings in paragraph 5.6 of Writ Petition No.10390/2016 reveals that the scaling method was erroneous and therefore, this aspect was required to be explained by the respondent, hence, submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 8 WP-10390-2016
9. No other argument is pressed or argued by counsel for the parties.
10. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
11. As per the submissions so advanced at the behest of the petitioners, this Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 sought response of the Public Service Commission as regards following three queries:
"A. Whether prior sanction of the state is required for introduction of scaling method in an examination? If yes, whether sanction was sought before adopting the scaling method in Forest State Service Examination 2014?
B. Whether the formula of scaling adopted in the aforesaid examination was approved by a panel of experts?
C. Whether the change in recruitment process i.e., introduction of scaling method adopted by way of corrigendum dated 20.11.2015 was published in the Gazette?
12. Answering the aforesaid three queries, Public Service Commission submitted additional submissions vide Document No.4692/2025. Perusal of the aforesaid additional submissions reveal that the Commission has stated in the additional submissions that the Commission is not at all required to get the process of examination sanctioned/approved from the State Government. It is further stated by the Commission in paragraph 3 that a committee was constituted to deliberate and approve adopting of method of scaling. According to paragraph No.3, a committee in its meeting dated 19.11.2015 after critical deliberation approved the method of scaling of optional subjects in 2014 exam and minutes have also been brought on record as Annexure AR/1. The contents of Annexure AR/1 and the document which has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 9 WP-10390-2016 produced by the petitioner are same. To deal with query No.3, the Commission also asserted that there exists no requirement of publication of adopted method in gazette notification as per Madhya Pradesh State Forest Recruitment Rules, 1977. Upon examination of the aforesaid response of the Commission, it would reveal that under the Rules of 1977 there is no requirement of obtaining approval or sanction from the State Government for introduction of scaling method in examination. Simultaneously there exists no requirement of publication in gazette notification the method which is going to be adopted for conduct of examination. So far as query No.2 is concerned, the same reflects that Public Service Commission constituted a committee and the committee after due deliberation decided to adopt method of scaling for optional subject in the examination of 2014. Introduction of method for the purposes of evaluation, is a subject which is required to be dealt with by the experts of the field and, this issue was dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 495 and the Apex Court concluded that all questions including the method of evaluation should be left to the bodies of expert in the field. The Apex Court in paragraph 20 as under:
"20. We cannot understand the law to be imposing the requirement of adoption of moderation to a particular kind of examination and scaling to others. Both are, at best, opinions, exercise of which requires an in-depth consideration of questions that are more suitable for the experts in the field. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant solution by adoption of any singular process or by a straitjacket Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214
10 WP-10390-2016 formula. Not only examiner variations and variation in award of marks in different subjects are issues to be answered, there are several other questions that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the strictness of the questions set in a multi-disciplinary examination format is one such fine issue that was coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh [Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 870] . A conscious choice of a discipline or a subject by a candidate at the time of his entry to the University thereby restricting his choice of papers in a public examination; the standards of inter-subject evaluation of answer papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such questions and, may be, several others not identified herein are required to be considered, which questions, by their very nature should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including, the Public Service Commissions. The fact that such bodies including the Commissions have erred or have acted in less than a responsible manner in the past cannot be a reason for a free exercise of the judicial power which by its very nature will have to be understood to be, normally, limited to instances of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power."
13. The decision of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar (supra) was again followed by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi reported in (2022) 11 SCC 578 and the Apex Court has held in paragraph 69 as under:
"69. In conclusion, the exercise undertaken by the Board in adopting the process of normalisation at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of the Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law. The power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasised by the High Court there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fides at any juncture of the process. One more facet of the matter is the note of caution expressed by this Court in para 20 of its decision in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 11 WP-10390-2016 Sunil Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission [Sunil Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2016) 2 SCC 495 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 468] . As observed by this Court, the decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out."
14. Perusal of the aforesaid decision reflects that it is the expert body including Commission who is required to take decision as regards introduction of a particular method for the purposes of evaluation. In the case in hand, an expert body was constituted which is evident from Annexure AR/1 filed with the additional submissions by the respondent. As per the said decision, it was decided to introduce the scaling method for the purposes of evaluation. It was further clarified that the scaling method would be applied qua optional subjects.
15. The Apex Court also in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) dealt with the controversy regarding adoption of scaling method for the purposes of evaluation and the Apex Court held as under:
"24. In the Judicial Service Examination, the candidates were required to take the examination in respect of the all five subjects and the candidates did not have any option in regard to the subjects. In such a situation, moderation appears to be an ideal solution. But there are examinations which have a competitive situation where candidates have the option of selecting one or few among a variety of heterogenous subjects and the number of students taking different options also vary and it becomes necessary to prepare a common merit list in respect of such candidates. Let us assume that some candidates take Mathematics as an optional subject and some take English as the optional subject. It is well-recognised that a mark of 70 out of 100 in mathematics does not mean the same thing as 70 out of 100 in English. In English 70 out of 100 may indicate to an outstanding student whereas in Mathematics, 70 out of 100 may merely indicate an average student. Some optional subjects may be very easy, when Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 12 WP-10390-2016 compared to others, resulting in wide disparity in the marks secured by equally capable students. In such a situation, candidates who have opted for the easier subjects may steal an advantage over those who opted for difficult subjects. There is another possibility. The paper setters in regard to some optional subjects may set questions which are comparatively easier to answer when compared some paper setters in other subjects who set tougher questions difficult to answer. This may happens when for example, in a Civil Service examination, where Physics and Chemistry are optional papers, examiner 'A' sets a paper in Physics appropriate to a degree level and examiner 'B' sets a paper in Chemistry appropriate for matriculate level. In view of these peculiarities, there is a need to bring the assessment or valuation to a common scale so that the inter se merit of candidates who have opted for different subjects, can be ascertained. The moderation procedure referred to in the earlier para will solve only the problem of examiner variability, where the examiners are many, but valuation of answer scripts is in respect of a single subject. Moderation is no answer where the problem is to find inter se merit across several subjects, that is, where candidates take examination in different subjects. To solve the problem of inter se merit across different subjects, statistical experts have evolved a method known as scaling, that is creation of scaled score. Scaling places the scores from different tests or test forms on to a common scale. There are different methods of statistical scoring. Standard score method, linear standard score method, normalized equipercentile method are some of the recognized methods for scaling.
25. A. Edwin Harper Jr. & V Vidya Sagar Misra in their publication "Research on Examinations in India" have tried to explain and define scaling. We may usefully borrow the same. A degree 'Fahrenheit' is different from a degree 'Centigrade'. Though both express temperature in degrees, the 'degree' is different for the two scales. What is 40 Degrees in Centigrade scale is 104 Degrees in Fahrenheit scale. Similarly, when marks are assigned to answer-scripts in different papers, say by Examiner 'A' in Geometry and Examiner 'B' in History, the meaning or value of the 'mark' is different. Scaling is the process which brings the mark awarded by Examiner 'A' in regard to Geometry scale and the mark awarded by Examiner 'B' in regard to History scale, to a common scale. Scaling is the exercise of putting the marks which are the results of different scales adopted in different subjects by different examiners into a common scale so as to permit Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 13 WP-10390-2016 comparison of inter se merit. By this exercise, the raw marks awarded by the examiner in different subjects is converted to a 'score' on a common scale by applying a statistical formula. The 'raw marks' when converted to a common scale are known as the 'scaled marks'. Scaling process, whereby raw marks in different subjects are adjusted to a common scale, is a recognized method of ensuring uniformity inter se among the candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects, as, for example, the Civil Services Examination.
*****
33. .......The scaling formula is more suited and appropriate to find a common base and inter se merit, where candidates take examinations in different subjects..........
*****
47. We may now refer to the decision of this Court i n S.C. Dixit [(2003) 12 SCC 701] . The validity of scaling was considered in paras 31 to 33 of the judgment extracted below: (SCC p. 716) "31. There is a vast percentage difference in awarding of marks between each set of examiners and this was sought to be minimised by applying the scaling formula. If scaling method had not been used, only those candidates whose answer-sheets were examined by liberal examiners alone would get selected and the candidates whose answer-sheets were examined by strict examiners would be completely excluded, though the standard of their answers may be to some extent similar. The scaling system was adopted with a view to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners. The counsel for the respondents could not demonstrate that the adoption of scaling system has in any way caused injustice to any meritorious candidate. If any candidate had secured higher marks in the written examination, even by applying the scaling formula, he would still be benefitted.Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 14 WP-10390-2016
32. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the process of scaling was done examinerwise only and the scaling formula did not take into consideration the average of mean of all the candidates in one particular paper but took the mean of only that group of candidates which has been examined by one single examiner. The counsel for U.P. PSC submitted that the observation made by the High Court is incorrect. The scaling formula was adopted to remove the disparity in the evaluation of 14 examiners who participated in the evaluation of answer-sheets and the details have also been furnished as to how the scaling formula was adopted and applied. Therefore, we do not think that the observation of the Division Bench that the Commission did not take care of varying standards which may have been applied by different examiners but has sought to reduce the variation of the marks awarded by the same examiner to different candidates whose answer-sheets had been examined, is correct. The Division Bench was of the view that as a result of scaling, the marks of the candidates who had secured zero marks were enhanced to 18 and this was illegal and thus affected the selection process. This finding is to be understood to mean as to how the scaling system was applied. 18 marks were given notionally to a candidate who secured zero marks so as to indicate the variation in marks secured by the candidates and to fix the mean marks.
33. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the application of scaling formula to the examinations in question was either arbitrary or illegal. The selection of the candidates was done in a better way.
Moreover, this formula was adopted by U.P. PSC after an expert study and in such Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 15 WP-10390-2016 matters, the court cannot sit in judgment and interfere with the same unless it is proved that it was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power and the selection itself was done contrary to the Rules. Ultimately, the agency conducting the examination has to consider as to which method should be preferred and adopted having regard to the myriad situations that may arise before them."
48. S.C. Dixit [(2003) 12 SCC 701] , therefore, upheld scaling on two conclusions, namely, ( i) that the scaling formula was adopted by the Commission after an expert study and in such matters, the Court will not interfere unless it is proved to be arbitrary and unreasonable; and
(ii) the scaling system adopted by the Commission eliminated the inconsistency arising on account of examiner variability (differences due to evaluation by strict examiners and liberal examiners). As scaling was a recognised method to bring raw marks in different subjects to a common scale and as the Commission submitted that they introduced scaling after a scientific study by experts, this Court apparently did not want to interfere...
(emphasis supplied) 1 6 . The Apex Court further in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar Yadav and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 706 has held as under:
"12. It is clear from the above that the process of scaling is a recognised method for ensuring uniformity amongst candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects. When there are a number of examiners evaluating the papers of a large number of candidates in an examination, there is a possibility of "examiner subjectivity" or "examiner variability". To minimise the examiner variability, this Court in Sanjay Singh case [Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 870] held that moderation would be the best method to be followed."
17. From the perusal of aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 16 WP-10390-2016 clear that scaling method is one of the well recognized method followed by UPSC and other State PSCs for ensuring uniformity among the candidates who take exams in different subjects which are optional.
18. The Public Service Commission in the reply has submitted in the following terms which has been reproduced as under:
"5. That, it is most humbly submitted that there are more than 18-19 subjects in the State Forest Service Examinations and aspiring candidates avail their option to choose particular subject for participating in the selection process. Admittedly. there is no common subject or common syllabus and the candidates are required to participate in the selection process on the basis of subject opted by them. It is for this reason, scaling method has been adopted for evaluation of merit so as in the selection process. It is humbly submitted that in the examinations conducted by Union Public Service Commission the scaling method is adopted for evaluation of merit because there are large number of different subjects and candidates participate in the selection process as per the subject opted by them. Itis respectfully submitted that the State Civil Services Examinations conducted up to the year 2013 there was scaling method for evaluation of merit adopted by the answering respondents because there were 30-35 subjects and candidates participate in the selection process after choosing their own subjects. After year 2013 common subjects and common syllabus is made for the candidates participating in the State Civil Service Examinations and thus scaling method of evaluation of merit has been dropped. However, in the given case there are approximately 18-19 subjects and candidates appear in the examination with different subjects and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 17 WP-10390-2016 there is no common syllabus and, therefore, scaling method has been adopted for moderation of marks properly and the same has been rightly done so as to assure fairness in the selection process and equal opportunity to all candidates. The corrigendum dated 20.11.2015 (Annexure P-5) has been issued on the basis of recommendation of expert committee and decision taken by the Board and similar method of scaling for evaluation of merit is also followed by the Union Public Service Commission and, therefore, there is no anomaly in issuance of aforesaid corrigendum and there is no arbitrariness in action as alleged in the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in one of the judgement that scaling method for evaluation of merit is not arbitrary and moderation of marks is rightly done by the Selection Commission. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Copy of the judgement is enclosed as Annexure R/2-1 .
6. In regard to submission made by petitioners in paragraph 5.7 of the writ petition that petitioner No.1 belonging to OBC category candidate has secured 700/900 marks and his name is not included in the list for interview, whereas, another candidate namely Neeraj Bisen (OBC candidate) who has scored comparatively lesser marks i.e. 558/900 is included in the list for interview. The aforesaid averments made in the writ petition is vehemently denied and disputed. It is most humbly submitted that petitioners have given imaginary figure of marks in paragraph 5.7 of the writ petition because answering respondents have not disclosed the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examinations because as per the method of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 18 WP-10390-2016 selection adopted by the answering respondents the total marks secured by the candidates is declared only after completion of personal interview. The petitioners have stated that from reliable sources they have got the aforesaid information and there is no concrete basis to make such averments in the writ petition. The selection process is completed only after completion of personal interview and, therefore, after written examinations the marks can not be disclosed. In this view of this matter there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed."
19. The aforesaid stand of the PSC reveals that the PSC has disputed the pleadings of the petitioners so far as they relate to scoring of higher marks by the petitioners than the candidates who have been selected. The PSC has made categorical statement in the return that the marks secured by the candidates are only declared after completion of personal interview. The petitioners have not disclosed the source in the present petition which enable the petitioners to come across the marks which are detailed in paragraph 5.7 of the petition.
20. The petitioners have filed rejoinder and in the rejoinder the petitioners have stated that they were aware about password of one of the candidate namely Ms. Latika Tiwari and through the said password they obtained the answer-sheet. This averment has been made in paragraph 7 of the rejoinder. How the petitioners came in possession of password of another candidate is serious matter, and the petitioners neither in the memorandum of petition nor in the rejoinder clarified as to how the petitioners came in possession of password of another candidate. The said approach by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 19 WP-10390-2016 petitioners is questionable and also goes to raise presumption against present petitioners that they made attempt to breach the secrecy of process of examination. There is no affidavit or document on record to demonstrate that Ms. Latika Tiwari provided password to the present petitioners. Hence, the conduct of the present petitioners so far as possession of password of Ms. Latika Tiwari itself is suspicious. Moreover, the mark-sheet/response sheet pertains to only two subjects. Therefore, mere averment in the petition regarding obtaining higher marks than the other candidates cannot be a sole ground to interfere with the scaling method unless the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the said process was faulty and has resulted in arbitrariness thereby jeopardizing the rights of the deserving candidates.
21. Perusal of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it reveals that the scaling formula is adopted by the Commission after the expert study and interference with such a matter is not warranted unless the same is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and malafide exercise of power.
22. Thus, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court, the action of the respondent cannot be said to be arbitrary, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.
23. Further, the question of participating in the selection process and disputing the same at a subsequent stage came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"11. The basic issue that was addressed by the Division Bench was that the appellants having participated in the fresh round of selection could not be permitted to assail the process once they were declared unsuccessful. On this aspect, a brief recapitulation of the facts would be Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 20 WP-10390-2016 in order. In the original process of selection, following the issuance of General Order No. 204 of 2003 by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur on 2-12-2003, a written examination was held on 20-4-2004 consisting of eighty-five marks followed by an interview on 7-7- 2004 consisting of fifteen marks. The High Court declined to approve of the selection list and issued through its Registrar (Administration), a communication dated 19-8-2004 requiring the holding of a fresh written examination carrying ninety marks in which the qualifying marks would be regarded as forty-five in terms of its General Letter No. 1 of 1995. Pursuant thereto, a circular was issued in the form of a new general order bearing No. 171 of 2004 on 8-10-2004 which stipulated that in terms of the directions issued by the High Court on 19-8-2004, a fresh written examination would be held carrying ninety marks (with qualifying marks as forty-five) followed by an interview of ten marks. The candidates who had applied earlier were not required to apply afresh.
12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.
13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] , this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] , this Court held that : (SCC p. 107, para 18) "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 21 WP-10390-2016 process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052] a n d Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 345] .)"
24. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court clearly reveals that the eventuality where candidates' conduct of disputing the process after participation was taken note of. In the case in hand also the present petitioners, who were well aware about the corrigendum even after issuance of the same did not dispute it at any point of time. However, after declaration of result when they found themselves to be unsuccessful, they have filed this petition. The petitioners are assailing the corrigendum on the ground that same amounts to change in rules of the game mid process. The petitioners in paragraph 5.6 of W.P. No.10390/2016 while giving reference to the marks of the different candidates including the petitioners are making an effort to state that the scaling method was erroneous but the petitioners have failed to demonstrate as to how the said scaling method is erroneous.
25. Though the petitioners have argued the matter at length and they are disputing the corrigendum on the ground that the same was subsequently introduced and thereby according to the petitioners, rules of the game were changed subsequently. However, same corrigendum was questioned by another candidate Sadhna Chouhan (supra) in W.P. No.20740/2006. The coordinate Bench dealt with the said issue and dismissed the petition while observing as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 22 WP-10390-2016 "Considered the arguments of both the parties.
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 that cut-off marks for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest for Scheduled Tribe Female Category was 691.85 marks. Petitioner had obtained 665.69 marks even if the arguments of the petitioner is accepted and 22 marks is given to the petitioner then she will only get 688 marks which will be below cut-off marks of Scheduled Tribes Female Category.
In view of the above, petitioner has no case. Though elaborate arguments had been advanced regarding corrigendum and by which certain method was introduced in the examination and it was also submitted that scaling method was introduced on 20.11.2015.
On going through the return filed by the respondents, it is mentioned that advertisement and Corrigendum is filed as Annexure R/4 and same is mentioned in Clause- 5 but no such clause is found in the document attached, however, mentioning of Corrigendum is also found in the results, which has been declared on 05.12.2016 and it is mentioned in the select list and results were declared as per the Corrigendum No.03/04/examination/2014 dated 20.11.2015.
Examination was conducted from 05.01.2016 to 21.2.2016. It is clear that Corrigendum was issued before conducting of examination, therefore, selection process had not began and therefore, petitioner cannot say that Rules of games of selection had been changed in the midway.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed."
26. A perusal of the order passed by the coordinate Bench reflects that the examinations were conducted from 05.01.2016 to 21.02.2016 and the corrigendum was issued on 20.11.2015. The coordinate Bench observed that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47214 23 WP-10390-2016 the corrigendum was issued prior to the conduct of the examination and therefore, declined to interfere with the corrigendum.
27. The aforesaid discussion clearly reveals that the same corrigendum has already been declined to be interfered with by the coordinate Bench in the case of Sadhna Chouhan (supra). The order passed by the coordinate Bench in Sadhna Chouhan (supra) has not been assailed before the Division Bench and the same has already attained finality.
28. Thus, in absence of challenge to the said decision of the coordinate Bench in Sadhna Chouhan (supra) and also in the event of failure on the part of the petitioners to demonstrate as to how the scaling method is faulty, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petitions inasmuch as the scoring of less marks by the selected candidates was also taken note of by the coordinate Bench in the case of Sadhna Chouhan (supra) yet, the interference was declined. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to take a different view which has already been taken by the coordinate Bench in identical case.
29. Resultantly, the petitions stand dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE vc Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 27-09-2025 17:46:47