Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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.

NEUTRAL 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 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 .

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 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:

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 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 .