Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

45. Then remains the question as to whether it will make any difference in the instant case if the scaling method is not applied to subjects where valuation and revaluation has been upheld by the High Court. In our view, it will make no difference because the High Court has not found it necessary to direct re-evaluation of answer scripts in those subjects where the average variation was not found to be more than plus or minus 20%. Thus, the subjects in which the High Court has not directed re-evaluation are those subjects where in any case the scaling method would not be applicable because the average variation of marks has been found to be within the prescribed parameter. We, therefore, uphold the direction of the High Court to apply the scaling method in re-evaluation of answer scripts pursuant to the order of the High Court.

Provided that the commission, on intimation being received from the Government before declaration of the result of the Preliminary Examination, may increase or decrease the number of vacancies advertised.

Rule 17 provides for recommendation to be made by the Commission that has to be on the basis of marks finally awarded to each candidate. Rule 18 provides for retotalling of marks and prohibits re-evaluation of the answer-scripts. Merely by the provision made in Rule 18, that there shall be no re-evaluation, it cannot be said that scaling method could not have been applied. There is vast difference in scaling and revaluation. Scaling is done so as to remove anomalies as pointed out by the Apex Court in para 24/25 of the dictum in Sanjay Singh (supra). The submission raised that the marks obtained in the written examination and the marks of the interview have to be added does not oust the element of scaling. Such scaling is not permissible in the cases of common subjects. But in the case of optional subjects available to be opted by large number of candidates scaling has been held to be permissible by the Apex Court.