Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 03:57:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45543-DB] (8 of 43) [SAW-232/2024]

6. The appellants have laid challenge to the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that neither the rules of 1962 nor the rules of 2015 provide for any such scaling method to be undertaken by the RPSC. It is stated that the rules provide for a complete mechanism and the adoption of the scaling method for the purpose of recruitment is wholly unreasonable and unjustified. It is further alleged that the formula of scaling as adopted by the RPSC has created absurdity and resulted in casualty of merit. It is submitted that candidates who have scored 125 or 173 marks in Physics or 140 marks in mathematics have been awarded 200 marks, which is maximum marks likewise. And as such inter se merit which leads to such absurd results and gives leverage to lesser meritorious candidates, cannot be applied to select best available candidates. It is also contended that no prior information was given to the candidates that the scaling would be applied It is also contended that the RPSC has applied the formula without any application of mind ignoring the critical concepts of application of scaling formulas. The examination being objective in nature and the subjects being common from science stream, the variation of difficulty level/index cannot be established in a justified manner.

"19. The entirety of the discussion and conclusions in Sanjay Singh with regard to the question of the suitability of the scaling system to an examination where the question papers were compulsory and common to all candidates. The deficiencies and shortcomings of the scaling method as pointed out and extracted above were in the above context. But did Sanjay Singh lay down any binding and inflexible requirement of law with regard to adoption of the scaling method to an examination where the candidates are tested in different subjects as in the present examination? Having regard to the context in which the conclusions were reached and opinions were expressed by the Court it is difficult to understand as to how this Court in Sanjay Singh could be understood to have laid down any binding principle of law or directions or even guidelines with regard to holding of examinations; evaluation of papers and declaration of results by the Commission. What was held, in our view, was that scaling is a method which was generally unsuitable to be adopted for evaluation of answer papers of subjects common to all candidates and that the application of the said method to the examination in question had resulted in unacceptable results. Sanjay Singh did not decide that to such an examination i.e. where the papers are common the system of moderation must be applied and to an examination where the papers/subjects are different, scaling is the only available option. We are unable to find any declaration of law or precedent or principle in Sanjay Singh to the above effect as has been canvassed before us on behalf of the appellants. The decision, therefore, has to be understood to be confined to the facts of the case, rendered upon a consideration of the relevant Service Rules prescribing a particular syllabus.

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's case (supra) has held that the choice of paper in public examinations, the standard of inter-subject evaluation of answer papers, and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in different subjects are the questions required to be left to the expert body like the Public Service Commission.

20. Recently, the hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi reported in 2022 INSC 24, again had an occasion to consider the method of scaling adopted by the examining bodies. The Hon'ble Court considered the earlier judgements passed in Sanjay Singh, Sunil Kumar, Subash Chandra Dikshit and Mahender Kumar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and approved the scaling method adopted in the case before the Court. Although the case before the Hon'ble Court was not of optional subjects, but of compulsory subjects, nevertheless, the examination was undertaken in 29 different batches, meaning thereby that 29 different question papers were set for which the method of scaling was adopted by the examining body.

25. We are of the view that learned Single Judge has committed gross error in taking a view different from Jai Singh's case (supra) in which the applicability of scaling method in RAS Examination was upheld, following the judgements in Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal & Ors. V/s State of Rajsthan & Ors. (supra) rendered in the year 1994, Rajasthan Public Service Commission V/ s Ramesh Chandra Pilwal (supra) rendered in the year 1997, Manish Sinsinwar & Ors. V/s (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 03:57:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45543-DB] (34 of 43) [SAW-232/2024] Rajasthan Public Service Commission & anr. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.268/2004) decided on 14.6.2004. All the four Division Benches of this Court have consistently upheld the scaling method adopted by the RPSC in RAS Examination held under the Rules of 1999. The same method was adopted in which the scaled marks were finally compiled for final results and merit was prepared for calling candidates for interview, based on the scaled marks of all subjects. The results were declared by RPSC on 27.1.2014 of 3165 candidates, to cail for interview.