Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Recruitment made to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of U.P. was the subject matter of challenge in a Writ Petition filed in this Court in Sanjay Singh and Another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another (2007) 3 SCC

720. The examination was conducted by the Uttar  Pradesh Public Service Commission in 2003. The result of the examination was challenged on the ground that the adoption of the scaling method was arbitrary. The complaint was that there was reduction of actual marks to the detriment of meritorious candidates. This Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) considered the point whether the scaling method adopted by the Commission was arbitrary and irrational and held that moderation is the appropriate method to offset examiner variability and the process of scaling can be followed where the candidates take different optional subjects.

8. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant is that the High Court did not appreciate the ratio of the judgment in Sanjay Singh’s case in its proper perspective. According to him, it is true that this Court in Sanjay Singh’s case held that moderation is the appropriate method to be followed for examiner variability. However, it was also held that in case candidates have to take examination in different subjects, scaling method can be followed. He submitted  that the examinations in this case are different from the examinations in Sanjay Singh’s case where all the candidates had to take the same papers. In the examinations with which we are concerned in this case, there were 33 different optional subjects out of which candidates had to choose two. He also submitted that the Appellant Commission was adopting the scaling method on the basis of expert advice taken by them in respect of all the examinations conducted by the Commission. He finally submitted that this case does not warrant interference as all the selected candidates have been working for the past ten years and are not parties before this Court.

9. The counsel appearing for the Respondents/Writ Petitioners submitted that admittedly, scaling method was followed by the Appellant - Public Service Commission due to examiner variability. They have pointed out the pleadings as well as the admissions made on behalf of the Public Service Commission before the High Court to support the said submission. The counsel further pointed out that the Appellant – Commission should not have adopted the scaling method  for the compulsory subjects i.e. English and Hindi. In any event, the learned counsel for the Respondents urged that they were adversely affected in view of the scaling method being followed due to reduction of marks actually scored by them in the examination. They could not be selected only due to the adoption of scaling method in awarding marks.

11. This Court also considered a situation where candidates have an option to take different subjects for which the scaling method is appropriate as follows:

“24. In the Judicial Service Examination, the candidates were required to take the examination in respect of all the 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 marks of 70 out of 100 in Mathematics do not mean the same thing as 70 out of 100 in English. In English 70 out of 100 may indicate an outstanding student whereas in Mathematics, 70 out of 100 may merely indicate an average student. Some optional subjects may be very easy, when 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 to some paper-setters in other subjects who set tougher questions which are difficult to answer. This may happen when for example, in Civil Service Examination, where Physics and Chemistry are optional papers, Examiner ‘A’ sets a paper in Physics appropriate to 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, normalised  equipercentile method are some of the recognised methods for scaling.