Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged between the parties and therefore as requested and agreed by learned Counsel of the parties all three writ petitions which involves common question of facts and law, have been heard and are being decided finally under the Rules of the Court at the admission stage.

2. For the purpose of narration of facts we have taken the case of Paras Nath Pal and others, Writ Petition No. 18775 of 2007 as the leading case.

3. Petitioners are candidates in Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service (Backlog/Special Recruitment) Examination, 2004 and have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging result of main written examination of the said selection declared by U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") on 24,3.2007 by applying scaling method known as "Linear Standard Score Method". They have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the said result and have further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Commission to prepare the result of written examination afresh by excluding the aforesaid scaling method and instead applying "moderation system" as discussed by the Apex Court in para 23 of the judgment in Sanjay Singh and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Anr. .

2. The marks calculated by applying "Linear Standard Score Method" would result in scaled scores or scaled marks and cannot be considered to be marks awarded to the candidates in the written examination and therefore, scaling is violative of the relevant rules of recruitment of various services up for consideration before the Commission. The Apex Court held where the candidates in a competitive examination have the option of selecting one or few amongst a variety of heterogeneous subjects and number of students taking different options also varying, in order to prepare a common merit list of such candidates the experts have adopted the method known as scaling which places score from different tests or test in different subjects on to a common scale. There are different methods of statistical scoring namely, Standard Score Method, Linear Standard Score Method, normalize equal percentile method etc. The scaling method however, adopted by the Commission to reduce examiners variability has been held to be illegal and arbitrary by the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (Supra). It may adopt the same to find a common base across different subjects. In the main written examination the scaling system has been adopted by the Commission, as admitted in the counter affidavit, to reduce examiners variability, the same is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (Supra).

15. The short question up for consideration, therefore, in the light of the rival submissions as noted above is whether the adoption of scaling method i.e. "Linear Standard Score Method" by the respondents in the present selection i.e. result of main written examination, is valid and correct or not.

16. The Commission has admitted in its counter affidavit that in the compulsory papers the subject of General Studies, Paper 1 and 2 are of objective types, the assessment is made by computer and therefore scaling system is not applied thereto since there is no examiner variability. The papers of General Hindi and Essay, being conventional type are assessed by more than one examiner and therefore scaling system is applied on examiner level. In para 16 of the writ petition it has been stated that in the four optional papers in different subjects also the Commission has applied scaling method i.e. "Linear Standard Score Method" and in reply thereto in para 18 of the counter affidavit, the Commission has referred to para 24 of the judgment in Sanjay Singh (Supra) but has not said that the scaling system has not been adopted in optional subjects. During the course of argument, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission stated at the bar that the scaling method has been adopted in all six subjects, compulsory and optional, other than two compulsory subject where the assessment is through computer, and therefore it is an admitted position that the result of main written examination has been declared by the Commission by applying scaling method in respect to two compulsory and four optional subjects. The manner, method and procedure of the system has not stated in detail in the counter affidavit but during the course of argument it is stated that in the manner it has been done in the past, the same has been followed in the present examination also. Reference is made to para 22 of the counter affidavit stating that since 1996 it has continuously been followed in the same manner. We, therefore, are justified in treating that the commission has applied scaling method in all respect, in the same manner as it was up for consideration before the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (Supra). It would, therefore, be appropriate to consider as to what has been held by the Apex Court in respect to the scaling method in the said judgment since the issue has already been dealt with by the Apex Court. In para 17 of the judgment, while upholding the right of the Commission to regulate the manner in which it will conduct examination and value the answer scripts, the Apex Court has clearly hold that its subject to the recruitment rules of the concerned service. It has observed as under:

28. Thus it is evident that in order to form a common base where the candidates have taken examinations in different optional subjects, the Commission was allowed to adopt the said system of scaling to bring the candidates appearing in different subjects on the common platform but in the same subject, for the purpose of examiner's variability, the adoption of scaling system has been deprecated and held arbitrary and illegal.

29. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Commission that the judgment is applicable prospectively and not to the selections already held in our view is totally misplaced and appears to be a conscious denial of observance of a law laid down by the highest Court of the land. While answering question No. 4, the Court held that the selection of judicial officers had already completed, the selected candidates had already appointed and were working as judicial officers. In these circumstances it held that the decision in Sanjay Singh (Supra) will be prospective in its application and will not affect the selections and appointments already made in pursuance to 2003 examination. In the case in hand, it cannot be said that even the selection was finalized. The Commission has admitted that only evaluation of the answer scripts had completed by November, 2006. That itself does not mean that the selection was finalized or completed in November, 2006. Despite of our repeated query the Commission did not inform as to when and at what stage the scaling method was applied for the purpose of preparing the result in question but from the method they used it is evident that only after the marks awarded by the examiners are available to the Commission, thereafter only they would have applied the scaling method for the purpose of finding out the marks awarded to the candidates and on that basis the merit list has been prepared. Since the assessment of the answer sheets by various examiners was completed as admitted by the Commission by end of November, 2006, rest of the work i.e. application of scaling system is obviously subsequent thereto. Since the result has been declared after more than two and half months from the date the judgment in Sanjay Singh (Supra) was pronounced by the Apex Court, the Commission had enough time to act and proceed in the manner as directed by the Court in the said judgment. In our view it cannot be said that the said judgment has no application to the selection in question and the contention of the Commission otherwise is rejected.