Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs . on 28 July, 2014
Bench: Govind Mathur, P.K. Lohra
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Vs.
Bhanwarlal & Anr.
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.513/2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:: July 28, 2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Mr. J.P. Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Mr. Hanuman
Singh and Mr. M.P. Beg, for the appellant RPSC.
Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Pareek, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Bhandari and
Mr. A.K. Choudhary for respondent No.1.
Dr. P.S. Bhati, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.2 State.
BY THE COURT:
Appellant, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'Commission'), has preferred this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd of March 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned verdict has disproved the scaling method and moderation technique pressed into service by the Commission for evaluating descriptive answer books for Rajasthan Administrative Services (Main) Examination 2012 (for short, 'Examination 2012'). Allowing the writ petition with certain disparaging remarks about functioning of the Commission, the writ Court has done away with scaling method and moderation technique and directed it to prepare result of Examination 2012 afresh on the basis of raw-marks obtained by the candidates.
[2]
Facts, necessary and germane to the matter, are recapitulated in chronological order as under:
Respondent-writ petitioner, being eligible, offered his candidature, for selection pursuant to advertisement dated 6th of February 2012 issued by the Commission for Rajasthan Administrative Services and Rajasthan Tehsildar Services Combined Examination 2012, as a non-gazetted government servant. The Commission conducted Preliminary Examination and its result was declared in the month of November 2012, wherein the respondent was declared successful to take up the Main Examination. In June 2013, Main Examination was held by the Commission and its result was announced in January 2014. As per the result of the Main Examination, cut-off marks for OBC (Male) Category were shown as 593, whereas the writ- petitioner secured 576 marks. In the interregnum, during the process of selection, State Government increased the posts in the cadre of State services on 27th of January 2014, which is one of the causes of grievance for the respondent-petitioner, as according to his assertion after declaration of result of Preliminary Examination enhancement of the vacancy is not permissible. Adverting to the marks secured by him, the respondent has made a valiant attempt to assert that marks are not to his expectation and commensurating with his performance in the Main Examination. Elaborating his grievance against the marks awarded to him, the respondent has submitted that in the marksheet issued by the Commission for the Main Examination, raw-marks of the candidates were not disclosed and the result contained scaled marks only. For his so-called afflictions, the petitioner has not placed on record any material to substantiate the same but has simply made an omnibus averment that moderation technique and scaling method has been applied by the Commission in non-adherence of the verdict of [3] Hon'ble Apex Court. Besides that, certain vague averments are made in the writ petition for assailing the action of the Commission in adopting the moderation technique and scaling method. Without quoting any specific incident in general, the petitioner has made an attempt to castigate the scaling method and moderation technique by alleging that the same has resulted in grave injustice to the candidates who have taken up the competitive examination.
The writ petition was contested by the Commission. In its reply, the appellant-Commission has submitted that increase in the number of vacancies was a just decision of the Commission as it received intimation from the Government in this behalf and proviso to Rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules 1999 (for short, 'Rules of 1999') clearly envisage that before declaration of result for Preliminary Examination vacancies can be increased or decreased. While joining the issue with the respondent in adopting the moderation technique and scaling method, the Commission has defended its action by relying on Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in case of Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan [2011(2) WLC Raj. 46]. Refuting the positive assertion of the respondent that he was expecting better marks in the Examination 2012, Commission has submitted that self assessment of a candidate is not conclusive and for adjudging performance of an examinee, examiner is the best Judge. Appellant- Commission also stated in the reply that although respondent- petitioner has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court but there is no material particular about the aforesaid judgment. On the issue of non-disclosure of raw-marks secured by an individual, Commission has categorically averred in the return that raw-marks are [4] disclosed and available on the website of the Commission.
Respondent-petitioner, thereafter, submitted a rejoinder and reiterated that moderation technique and scaling method applied and adopted by the Commission has failed to achieve the common standard of assessment of marks and instead it has resulted in serious anomalies. He is categorically averred in the rejoinder that State Government, on realizing many loopholes in the scaling system, has done away with the system for the future examinations. In his rejoinder, the petitioner for the first time relied on the decision in Sanjay Singh Vs. UPSC [(2007) 3 SCC 720] and urged that it is shady, ill-illogical and inefficient falling short of requisite equity in the selection process. Some examples are also quoted by the petitioner wherein after scaling raw-marks of the individual candidates are drastically increased or decreased. In totality, the respondent has made an affirmative attempt to project an improved version in his additional pleadings to highlight the probable pitfalls in scaling method and moderation technique. The petitioner has also taken a dig at the action of the Commission in applying scaling method vis-à-vis compulsory subjects which are common for all the candidates.
The learned Single Judge examined the afflictions of the writ-petitioner precisely with reference to adoption of scaling method and moderation technique by the appellant-Commission to evaluate descriptive answer books and finally by the judgment under appeal repudiated the scaling method and moderation technique while placing heavy reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh's case (supra).[5]
Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. J.P. Joshi, for the appellant, has strenuously urged that the learned Single Judge while disapproving the scaling system and moderation technique applied by the Commission for Examination 2012, relied on the verdict in Sanjay Singh's case without properly construing ratio decidendi of the judgment. Mr. Joshi would contend that in Para 24 and 25 of the verdict in Sanjay Singh's case, Hon'ble Apex Court in clear and unequivocal terms approved the technique of scaling but without considering the same, learned Single Judge has repudiated the scaling method. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that moderation and scaling of marks are two different modes enabling the examining authorities to achieve common standard of assessment of marks. Mr. Joshi would contend that the object of pressing into service the scaling method is to bring all subjects at par with the help of statistical method whereas moderation is resorted to only in those subjects which are hand-picked by the examining authorities as and when deemed fit. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi has urged that ratio of the dictum in Sanjay Singh's case was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan. The Coordinate Bench eventually in its verdict approved the same in the context of RAS Examination and simply made exception for its applicability vis-à-vis Judicial Services Examination. Buttressing his arguments with emphasis, learned counsel has contended that the learned Single Judge has not cared to examine the verdict in Jai Singh's case and simply distinguished the ratio of that judgment by citing a reason that scaling method has also been applied for compulsory subjects. Mr. Joshi submits that as a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge has not properly construed the object of scaling [6] method which was appreciated by the Coordinate Bench in Jai Singh's case precisely for achieving common standard of assessment of marks. Mr. Joshi further argued that occurrence of minor discrepancies in the result in applying the technique of scaling cannot be made basis for adjudging validity of the recruitment with microscopic details. Relying on decision in Sadanand Halo & Ors. Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Ors. [(2008) 4 SCC 619], learned counsel has submitted that in such matters adjudication is required to be made on the basis of pleadings of rival parties and no rowing enquiry is desirable by the Court. Learned counsel has submitted that the Commission is entrusted with the task of judging the merit of the candidates and the said function when carried out by the Commission fairly and impartially cannot be called in question unless and until the aggrieved party makes out a case that technique of scaling or the procedure evolved by the Commission is arbitrary or dehors the known principles of fair play. Mr. Joshi, in support of this contention, has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badalnath [(2009) 5 SCC 1].
E.converso, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, has stoutly defended the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and has urged that the appellant- Commission by applying scaling method in Examination 2012, crept in serious discrepancies which has eventually affected the result materially. Mr. Sharma, therefore, submits that by applying scaling method, Commission has acted in an absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable manner to deprive the respondent and alike from their right of consideration within four corners of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that [7] Clause 19 of the advertisement envisaged with clarity and precision that moderation technique and scaling method is to be applied at the time of Preliminary Examination and not vis-à-vis Main Examination 2012 but to utter dismay of the respondent and other competitors Commission has pressed into service moderation technique and scaling method for Examination 2012 contrary to the terms of the advertisement and as such indulgence granted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order calls for no interference. Learned Senior Counsel has urged with eloquence that the appellant- Commission has resorted to moderation technique and scaling method to evaluate descriptive answer books without any rationale mechanically to frustrate the very object of selecting meritorious and suitable candidates. Learned Senior Advocate has also urged that without any justifiable reasons the Commission has applied scaling for compulsory subjects which has been disapproved in Jai Singh's case (supra) by quoting some examples. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that by applying moderation technique and scaling method the appellant-Commission has not only acted contrary to the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh's case, but has also applied these methods at its whims and fancy at the cost of jeopardizing the rights of some of the meritorious individuals. In the alternative, the Senior Counsel Mr. Sharma has urged that assuming it that in certain situation, it was necessary for the appellant-Commission to apply scaling method but its application indiscriminately without considering the combination of subjects, like mathematics and statistics, management and public administration and anthropology and sociology, is indicative of the fact that the scaling method has been applied without any scientific basis, which is a cause of grave and serious concern, more particularly, when the selections are being made [8] by a Constitutional authority. Likewise, Mr. Sharma has also submitted that while applying moderation technique the appellant-Commission has not made any endeavour to achieve uniformity in the standards of evaluation of descriptive answer books inasmuch as no criteria was fixed by the Commission for evaluation of answer books of a particular subject vis-à-vis number of scripts of a particular subject and in case of 4149 scripts 23 examiners were deputed and for 8993 scripts 56 examiners are deputed and similarly in case of 8951 scripts only 42 examiners. With these examples, Mr. Sharma has vehemently argued that the moderation technique has been pressed into service in an absolutely casual manner to thwart the very object of selecting best talent available amongst the candidates. Mr. Sharma has emphasized that Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh's case has examined many pitfalls in scaling method and laid down certain norms for applying the same but appellant-Commission has acted contrary to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore the judgment and order impugned requires no interference in this intra-Court appeal with limited scope of review.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and bestowed our thoughtful considerations to the issues raised by the learned counsels in conjunction with the impugned judgment and order.
Appellant-Commission, a Constitutional body, is under scanner for its role to adopt a procedure for adjudging merits of the candidates participated in the competitive examination of 2012. The credibility of the institution like Commission is founded upon the faith of a common man in its proper functioning. Commission constituted under Article 315 is bound to conduct examinations for appointment to [9] the service of the State in terms of the rules framed by the State. It is trite that for conducting the examination of appointment to the service of the State, Commission is required to maintain and demonstrate absolute transparency. As the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has castigated the appellant-Commission for the method it has evolved for achieving common standard of assessment of marks, it has become imperative for us to examine the lis involved in the matter threadbare.
The pivotal question in this appeal, which requires judicial review, is moderation and scaling of marks applied by the appellant- Commission in evaluating the answer sheets of the candidates appeared in Examination 2012. Learned Single Judge, while examining the afflictions of the respondent-petitioner, has found many pitfalls in scaling method and moderation technique pressed into service by the Commission precisely by placing heavy reliance on a dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh's case (supra). In Sanjay Singh's case, challenge was laid by the unsuccessful candidates to the use of "statistical scaling" in regard to examinations for subordinate judiciary. Sustaining the challenge, Hon'ble Apex Court disapproved the scaling method vis-à-vis examination for judicial services precisely for the reason that all the candidates were required to take examination in respect of all the five subjects and they did not have any option in regard to the subjects. The Apex Court has further held that in such a situation moderation appears to be an ideal solution. Therefore, the Apex Court restricted scaling method to a limited extent for eliminating the general variation which exists from examiner to examiner with a word of caution that it is not a solution to solve examiner variability or hawk-dove effect.
[10]
It is also emphasized that there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter-se the examiners so that the effect of "examiner subjectivity" or "examiner variability" is minimized.
Before we proceed to examine the lis involved in the matter, it would be appropriate to ascertain the true meaning and purport of moderation technique and scaling method.
Moderation technique is applied by the examining body to achieve uniformity in standards of evaluation of descriptive answer books where number of examiners are involved. A procedure of moderation is devised to ensure equitable treatment to all candidates and to judge them on merit by reducing the "examiner variability" to the extent possible.
Scaling method, on the other hand, is devised 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 tests 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. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh's case (supra) has further clarified the scaling method with illustration in Para 25 of the verdict, which reads as under:
25. A. Edwin Harper Jr. & V. Vidya Sagar Misra in their publication Research on Examinations in India have [11] 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 "marks" is different. Scaling is the process which brings the marks awarded by Examiner 'A' in regard to Geometry scale and the marks 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 onto a common scale so as to permit comparison of inter se merit. By this exercise, the raw marks awarded by the examiner in different subjects are 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.
Upon consideration of the ratio decidendi of Sanjay Singh's case, it is amply clear that Hon'ble Apex Court has not completely discarded the scaling method for achieving common standard of assessment of marks. The Court felt that the method has to be applied with certain riders and is to be reviewed from time to time to make it more transparent and pragmatic in achieving the objects. In Para 30.4, Hon'ble Apex Court made following observations:
30.4 The Kothari Report, 1976 ('Policy and Selection Methods' published by UPSC) while referring to scaling in regard to papers in different subjects, by using appropriate statistical techniques as a recognized procedure for improving the reliability of examination as a tool for selection, however cautions that the method should be under continuous review and evaluation, that continuing improvement in the light of experience and new developments, taking into account advancement of knowledge, is essential.
While appreciating the true object of scaling to cure [12] disparity on account of strictness and liberality of the examiner, Court found it to be suitable and appropriate. The Court held in Para 33 of the verdict as under:
33. The reason given for introducing scaling is to cure the disparity on account of strictness or liberality of the examiners. But the effect of the scaling formula adopted by the Commission is to average the marks of a batch of candidates and convert the raw marks of each candidate in the batch into scaled marks with reference to the average marks of the batch and the standard deviation. The scaling formula therefore, does not address or rectify the effect of strictness or liberality of the examiner. The scaling formula is more suited and appropriate to find a common base and inter se merit, where candidates take examinations in different subjects.
As the scaling formula has no nexus or relevance to give a solution to the problem of eliminating the variation or deviation in the standard of valuation of answer-scripts by different examiners either on account of strictness or liberality, it has to be concluded that scaling is based on irrelevant considerations and ignores relevant considerations.
In Para 45 of the judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the position regarding scaling, which reads as under:
45. We may now summarise the position regarding scaling thus:
(i) Only certain situations warrant adoption of scaling techniques.
(ii) There are number of methods of statistical scaling, some simple and some complex. Each method or system has its merits and demerits and can be adopted only under certain conditions or making certain assumptions.
(iii) Scaling will be useful and effective only if the distribution of marks in the batch of answer-scripts sent to each examiner is approximately the same as the distribution of marks in the batch of answer-scripts sent to every other examiner.
(iv) In the linear standard method, there is no guarantee that the range of scores at various levels will yield candidates of comparative ability.
(v) Any scaling method should be under continuous review and evaluation and improvement, if it is to be a reliable tool in the selection process.
(vi) Scaling may, to a limited extent, be successful in eliminating the general variation which exists from examiner to examiner, but not a solution to solve examiner variability arising from the "hawk-dove" effect [13] (strict/liberal valuation).
Finally, in Para 49 of the verdict, Hon'ble Court has permitted Commission to continue with the system of scaling in certain contingencies thereby selectively recorded its disapproval of the scaling method vis-à-vis examination for recruitment in U.P. Judicial Services. The Court held in Para 49 as under:
49. Learned counsel for the Commission contended that scaling has been accepted as a standard method of evaluation in the following decisions and therefore it should be approved:
(i) Kamlesh Haribhai Goradia v. Union of India upheld by this Court by order dated 11-3-1987 in SLP (C) No. 14000 of 1986.
(ii) Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan upheld by this Court by order dated 22- 1-1996 in SLPs (C) Nos. 15682-84 of 1994.
(iii) K. Channegowda v. Karnataka Public Service Commission.
All the three cases related to moderation and not scaling. There are, however, passing references to scaling as one of the methods to achieve common standard of assessment. The fact that scaling is a standard method of assessment, when a common base has to be found for comparative assessment of candidates taking examinations in different optional subjects, is not in dispute. In fact the Commission may continue to adopt the said system of scaling, where a comparative assessment is to be made of candidates having option to take different subjects. The question is whether scaling, in particular, linear standard scaling system as adopted by the Commission, is a suitable process to eliminate "examiner variability" when different examiners assess the answer-scripts relating to the same subject. None of the three decisions is of any assistance to approve the use of method of "scaling" used by the Commission.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh's case (supra) considered all pros and cons of the scaling system in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh's case (supra). The Court, while considering true purport of Rule 15 & 17 of the Rules of 1999, has held that by virtue of Rule 15 & 17 of the Rules of 1999, [14] scaling is permissible. Para 38 and 39 of the verdict reads as under:
38. It was submitted that scaling was not permissible in view of Rules of 1999. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 provides scheme of examination, personality and viva-voce test. Rule 15 is quoted below:-
"15. Scheme of Examination, Personality and Viva-voice Test :- The competitive examination shall be conducted by the Commission in two stages i.e. Preliminary Examination and Main Examination as per the scheme specified in Schedule-III. The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination by the candidates, are declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies (category wise) to be filled in the year in the various services and posts but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks as may be fixed by the Commission for any lower range will be admitted to the Main Examination.
Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidates interviewed by them, having regard to their character, personality, address, physique and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. However, for selection to the Rajasthan Police Service candidate having 'C' Certificate of N.C.C. will be given preference. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the Main Examination by each such candidate:
Provided that the commission, on intimation being received from the Government before declaration of the result of the Preliminary Examination, may increase or decrease the number of vacancies advertised."
Rule 17 provides for recommendation to be made by the Commission that has to be on the basis of marks finally awarded to each candidate. Rule 18 provides for retotalling of marks and prohibits re-evaluation of the answer-scripts. Merely by the provision made in Rule 18, that there shall be no re-evaluation, it cannot be said that scaling method could not have been applied.
There is vast difference in scaling and revaluation. Scaling is done so as to remove anomalies as pointed out by the Apex Court in para 24/25 of the dictum in Sanjay Singh (supra). The submission raised that the marks obtained in the written examination and the marks of the interview have to be added does not oust the element of scaling. [15] Such scaling is not permissible in the cases of common subjects. But in the case of optional subjects available to be opted by large number of candidates scaling has been held to be permissible by the Apex Court.
39. In our opinion, scaling method is not ousted by operation of the Rules though scaling is not provided under the Rule, at the same time in order to arrive at just result, the Commission can evolve any appropriate method or formula as laid down by the Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 1. The Apex Court held that Commission which has been constituted in terms of the provision made in Constitution of India is bound to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State in terms of the Rules framed by the State. However, it is free to evolve procedure for conduct of examination. While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play, it cannot completely shut its eyes to the constitutional requirements. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. The Apex Court has laid down thus:
"25. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. The State framed Rules in the light of the decision of the High Court in S. Jafeer Saheb. Per se, it did not commit any illegality. The correctness of the said decision, as noticed hereinbefore, is not in question having attained finality. The matter, however, would be different if the said rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered therefor. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair."
The Division Bench has held in Para 41 of the verdict in clear and unequivocal terms that by applying the scaling in RAS and Subordinate Examination 2007, Commission has not committed any illegality. Finally, in Para 45 of the verdict, it has repelled the contentions that Commission by applying scaling has acted illegally and arbitrarily against the mandate of Sanjay Singh's case (supra). Para [16] 45 of the judgment reads as under:
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the scaling cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. The Commission has not violated the mandate of Sanjay Singh (supra). No error has been committed in reducing the cut-off marks of OBC Category candidates to bring at par with General Category candidates. No favouritism was done to any candidate and the scaling is found to have been uniformly applied to all the candidates. The petitioners have also failed to substantiate their case that to any other candidate higher marks were awarded due to favouritism.
A close scrutiny of the matter, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has not examined some of the distinguishing features in the judicial services examinations and the examinations conducted for State services, and have applied ratio decidendi of Sanjay Singh's case in abstract sense which has finally culminated into some caustic remarks against the functioning of the Commission. While recording its indignation about the procedure adopted by the Commission, the learned Single Judge has not recorded cogent finding that the same is arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play. Certain stray examples of apparent disparity in the raw-marks and the scale marks on which learned counsel for the respondent has harped and feel exasperated, in our considered opinion, cannot ipso facto embrace the entire exercise of scaling of marks by the Commission under cloud. That apart, there is no finding worth the name in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge for completely repudiating scaling method pressed into service by the Commission. The method of scaling and moderation of marks for achieving common standard of assessment of marks when applied uniformly, per-se cannot be categorized as infirm. Well it is true that issue relating to adoption of scaling and moderation technique is [17] contentious and there are certain question marks about its efficacy but then there is no common (equalized) standard of paper evaluation. It is really beyond comprehension to have a full-proof common standard of assessment of marks, which can be equated as fool-proof with a "Midas Touch". Need of the hour is to achieve inter and intra subject parity via proper efficient and transparent mechanism, which can remove ambiguity and prevent the merit to be sacrificed at the altar of randomness and subjectivity. The issues which have cropped up in this appeal having ramification on the scaling method and moderation technique, which has resulted in apparent disparity, arbitrariness, or inequality in common assessment of marks amongst candidates, have not been addressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order. Moreover, the respondent writ-petitioner has not laid foundation in this behalf in the main petition although had made an attempt to buttress his grievances in this behalf in the rejoinder. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned Single Judge has not examined the matter in that background and has essentially recorded his conclusions by applying ratio decidendi in Sanjay Singh's case; we are not persuaded to examine these contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent.
A conjoint reading of the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh's case and decision of the Coordinate Bench in Jai Singh's case, has made us to believe that verdict of the learned Single Judge in repudiating the scaling method and moderation technique whole-hog cannot be sustained and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed to that extent and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for examining the possible pitfalls or discrepancies of the scaling method and moderation technique applied [18] by the Commission in RAS (Main) Examination 2012.
The upshot of the above discussion is that this intra-Court appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded back for reconsideration on the issue enumerated in the penultimate paragraph of the verdict.
(P.K. LOHRA),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. arora/