Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Keeping the above objective in mind and in deference to the suggestions that emerged during the hearing of the writ petitions, the Commission is making the following offer:

(a) Wherever the random review done by the Head Examiner is less than 10 per cent of the answer scripts evaluated by any examiner in any subject, the short fall would be made up examinerwise and subjectwise by random review of answer scripts to the extent of shortfall. While doing so, it will be ensured that random sampling shall not be less than 5 per cent of the top-level answer scripts.

(b) The Commission has always been of the view that review referred to at para 3 of the scheme of valuation is not analogous to scaling technique. It has been understood by the Commission as review of marks of particular answer script taken up for random review by the Head Examiner. However, during the hearing it has been expressed that review should be understood as scaling technique. The Commission has considered the suggestion and is of the opinion that on the basis of random review of answer scripts done in respect of answer scripts evaluated by each examiner average variation shall be arrived at. Wherever the average variation is less than plus or minus 20 general review of the marks awarded need not be done. However, where the average difference is plus or minus 20 or more, the marks awarded by such examiner shall be increased or decreased by that average in respect of each of the answer scripts evaluated by that examiner. In case the average variation is less than plus or minus 20, but variation in respect of individual answer scripts is plus or minus 20 or above those answer scripts would be subjected to third valuation.

It further found that in the four subjects noticed in paragraph 32 of its judgment consisting of two papers each, there was adequate random review of answer scripts by the Chief Examiners and there was no variation beyond plus or minus 20 marks (out of 300 marks) in some papers, and only a very few, that too marginal, in other papers. There was, therefore, no need to interfere with the evaluation in respect of the aforesaid four subjects. In the optional subject Chemistry also, the material placed on record, did not justify any interference with the evaluation of answer papers. However, the High Court found that in the optional subject Agriculture and Marketing, no Head Examiner has been appointed, and the Chief Examiner had reviewed only three answer scripts out of 222 in Paper I and only four out of 279 in Paper II, that is 1% to 2%. Similar was the case with optional subject Criminology. In regard to the remaining 16 optional subjects and General Studies the High Court found that the number of answer scripts were large and the variation exceeding plus or minus 20 marks were also substantial. The necessary particulars have been noticed by the High Court in paragraph 34 of its judgment. The High Court has observed that the moderation in these subjects was restricted only to the answer scripts which were reviewed, without adopting the scaling technique of moderation by applying the upward or downward revision of all the answer scripts evaluated by the respective examiners. Even the random review was not done to the extent suggested in the guidelines, nor was any record maintained to show whether moderation was done by the Head Examiner/Chief Examiner in the manner required by the guidelines.

The submission that the guidelines earlier provided only for a random review to the extent of 5 to 10 % which has now been increased to 20%, is based on a factually wrong assumption. The High Court in paragraph 35 of its judgment has noticed that the random review prescribed under the guidelines was to be done in respect of 5% of top level answer scripts and 10% over all random review. Even the memo filed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission and accepted by the High Court assured that whenever random review done by the Head Examiner was less than 10% of the answer scripts evaluated by any examiner in any subject, the shortfall would be made up examiner-wise and subject-wise by random review of answer scripts to the extent of shortfall. While doing so it will be ensured that random sampling was not be less than 5% of the top level answer scripts. We have, therefore, no doubt that the direction of the High Court has not deviated from the guidelines. Moreover, 5% or 10% as the case may be is the minimum required percentage of random review. It can always be more than the minimum prescribed.