Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. After carefully noting the method of scaling of marks applied by UPPSC in evaluating the answer-sheets of the candidates pertaining to examinations in question, the Court found the said method to be perfectly legal and valid. The relevant discussion contained in the said decision is being reproduced herein below:-

"31. There is a vast percentage difference in awarding of marks between each set of examiners and this was sought to be minimized 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 benefited.

21. In the decision reported as Sanjay Singh Vs U.P. Public Service Commission (2007) 3 SCC 720 petitions under Article 32 of Constitution of India were filed before Supreme Court by the unsuccessful candidates who appeared in the examinations conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as the "UPPSC") in the year 2003 for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The said examination comprised of two successive stages; namely, Preliminary Examination and Main Examination. The preliminary examination was „objective type‟ consisting of two papers; namely, General Knowledge and Law. The Main Examination was descriptive (conventional) type and consisted of five papers. The answer sheets relating to each subject were distributed to several examiners for evaluation, as it was not possible to get the large number of answer sheets by a single examiner. The marks assigned by the examiners were subjected to „statistical scaling‟ and the results of the Examination were based on such scaled marks. On behalf of the petitioners, amongst others grounds, it was contended that conversion of their raw marks into scaled marks is illegal as the same was done by applying an arbitrary, irrational and inappropriate scaling formula. It was further submitted that the method of scaling of marks applied by UPPSC has resulted in meritorious candidates being ignored, and less meritorious candidates being awarded higher marks and selected, thereby violating the fundamental rights of the meritorious candidates. On behalf of UPPSC, it was contended that the „statistical scaling‟ method adopted in regard to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination is legal, scientific and sound and is based on experts‟ opinion as also the experience gained in conducting several examinations.

"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 heterogeneous 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.
(iii) K. Channegowda v. Karnataka Public Service Commission8.

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." (Emphasis Supplied)