Karnataka High Court
Dr Sumana Arora vs Union Public Service Commission on 8 October, 2013
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14255/2008 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN :
Dr. Sumana Arora,
Aged about 31 years,
D/o Sri J.K. Arora,
Residing at No.1152,
12th Main, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore-560 008. PETITIONER.
(By Sri T.N. Raghupathy, Advocate appearing for
Sri N. Manohar, Advocate)
AND :
1. Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi - 110 069, by its
Secretary.
2. Union of India,
represented by
its Secretary, Department of
Public Service and Personal
Affairs, New Delhi.
3. Anurag Tewari, IAS (probationer),
-2-
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
Shimoga, Shimoga District.
4. Shashi Kumar N., IPS (Probationer)
C/o Director, National Police Academy,
Hyderabad (A.P.).
RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for R1
Sri Gowhar Unnisa, CGC., for R2
R3 and R4 are served)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 05.09.2008 in O.A. No.374/2007 vide
Annexure `X` passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore and etc.
This writ petition coming on for hearing, this day,
N.Kumar J., delivered the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 05.09.2008 in O.A. No.374/2007, rejecting her request and for a declaration that the system of moderation or scaling of marks adopted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is contrary to and prohibited by Civil Services Examination Rules, 2005, as notified under the -3- notification dated 03.12.2005 by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Annexure 'A1') is arbitrary, irrational and illegal and is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, she wanted a declaration that the scaled / moderated marks cannot be the basis for the candidates to be called for interview for personality test and that only the marks actually obtained by the candidates in the Civil Services Examination (Main) 2006 will have to be the basis for the candidates to be called for interview for the personality test and for other consequential reliefs.
2. The respondents filed their counter and contested the matter.
3. This Court, after hearing both the parties, by an order dated 28.08.2012 directed the UPSC., to place on record the exercise of moderation, which they have undertaken in the branch in which, the petitioner herein was an applicant, for better appreciation of the contentions urged in the writ petition. Accordingly, -4- today, an official from the UPSC., has placed on record the said exercise done by the UPSC.
4. The case of the petitioner is that she has a good academic record through out her studies. She had obtained 87% aggregate marks in her 12th Standard examination in the year 1994. She was awarded a medical seat on the basis of merit and admitted to the prestigious Bangalore Medical College, Bangalore. She completed her MBBS course in the year 2000 with over 605 marks. Aspiring to join the prestigious Indian Civil Services to serve the Society, she appeared for Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC., in the year 2001 and later on in 2003. She was successful and became qualified in the main examination on both occasions. But, she was unsuccessful in the final selection. Undeterred by two failures, she again appeared for the Civil Services Examination (main) in 2006 conducted by the UPSC., at Bangalore Center. She performed exceptionally well in the said examination and she was hoping to clear the same with -5- very high percentage of marks and thus, making way for a call for the interview / personality test. However, she was deeply shocked and totally surprised in not finding her roll number in the list of candidates for interview / personality test. She sought for requisite information under the Right to Information Act and she was reliably informed that in all her seven papers, there was sharp downward moderation ranging between 5 to 30 marks in every paper. The petitioners` both optional subjects in the main written examination were Arts subjects, which in effect means that there should have been upward moderation vis a vis other non Arts subjects. The process of moderation of marks is contrary to the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2005 and is also against the principles of natural justice and fair play. Her grievance was that the process of moderation of marks, being outside the jurisdiction of UPSC., was arbitrary, irrational and illegal. Therefore, she approached the Tribunal for the aforesaid reliefs. The Tribunal declined to entertain the application and -6- dismissed the same. Against the said order, she has preferred this writ petition.
5. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioner is that as she wrote the examination in Arts subjects, if at all there were to be a moderation, it should be an upward moderation. It cannot be a downward moderation. According to her, because of the downward moderation, she has lost 5 to 30 marks in each paper.
6. The cover with which information was sent by UPSC., was opened. It discloses the raw marks and the moderated marks. The petitioner secured 920 final marks and her moderated marks is 947. It further discloses that except in one subject, where because of the downward moderation she lost 5 marks, she has secured higher marks in all the other subjects. As against 920 marks, she has been given 947 marks. The cut-off marks for the candidates to be eligible to be -7- called for interview was 975 marks. That is the reason why she was not called for the interview.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual aspects, the apprehension of the petitioner is imaginary and therefore, we do not see any merit in this petition.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. The cover containing the information is returned to the learned Counsel for respondent No.1, who handed over the same to the party, who has come from Delhi.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE sma