Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The aforesaid takes me to examine the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners for challenging the power of G.P.S.C. to apply method of scaling, and the method and manner applied by G.P.S.C. for scaling and thereby to deny the equal opportunity to candidates in the public employment for public administration. Learned Counsel M/s. K. B. Pujara, Mukul Sinha, R.K. Mishra, Y.S. Lakhani and Karia have made submissions on behalf of petitioners. Mr. Pujara has mainly contended that there is no authority to travel beyond the rules by the G.P.S.C. and in his submission there is no power to apply scaling method. He submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there is power then also it should have been notified either in the advertisement or in the rules and in the absence thereof it results into modifying various stipulations of the advertisement and making alteration in the eligibility criteria. Mr. Pujara relied on the judgment, dated 11-12-2002 of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Subhash Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors., to contend that the application of scaling is creating absurd results and hence method of applying scaling of marks by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission was struck down by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court and he submitted that the S.L.P. against the said judgment is also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Mr. Mukul Sinha while supporting the contention of Mr. Pujara has submitted that the word "marks obtained" must receive its natural meaning which would be raw marks and not scaled marks. Mr. Sinha also submitted that even the formula which has been applied for the purpose of scaling by G.P.S.C. is not as per the recommendation by Mr. Natarajan's book upon which reliance has been placed by the G.P.S.C. He submitted that there is total non-application of mind on the part of G.P.S.C. in applying the formula which has brought about absurd results. Mr. Sinha also submitted that the purpose of any competitive examination is to examine the competitive merits and applying statistical formula results into conversion of competitive merit which creates drastic results. The conversion formula, in his submission cannot be applied for assessing competitive merit of candidate concerned. Mr. Sinha also submitted that when the scaling method is applied and for the first time as admitted by G.P.S.C. in the competitive examination of public administration the burden is upon the G.P.S.C. to justify the scaling method and in his submission there is absolutely no justification in applying the scaling method in optional subjects. He submitted that there is no material placed before the Court as to why such comparison of the marks was necessary and the material which has weighed with the G.P.S.C. for applying scaling method in optional subjects. In furtherance to his contention, he has given an example by adding one optional subject as "Greek" and he submitted that if the candidate who has scored "O" marks in Greek language and if the formula which is applied by the G.P.S.C. is made applicable for the purpose of scaling taking base of total number of candidates appearing in the Greek language are 2, then in that case the scaled marks shall be "1" though the candidate has secured "O" marks in the said subject. Therefore, in his contention same brings about absurd result by applying scaling method. He also submitted that the principle of providing optional subject as per rule as a consequence of applying scaling method in the optional subjects is not only frustrated but the benefit is also taken away and in his submission by applying scaling method unequal candidates are treated as equal which violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. R.K. Mishra submitted that the strict interpretation of rule is required to be made and when the rule itself is clear it cannot be read so as to include application of scaling while awarding marks. Mr. Lakhani submitted that since the actual raw marks are not declared the correct picture is not emerging and in his contention on account of scaling the meritorious candidates are pushed down as against non-meritorious candidates. Mr. Paresh Upadhyay submitted that the scaling would be required only when the raw marks are not comparable. In his submission raw marks are comparable and therefore it was not at all necessary for applying scaling method. He submitted that the G.P.S.C. has blindly adopted the formula by mechanical exercise of power as discussed in the judgment of Rajasthan High Court. Mr. Karia has supported the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners.

10. Learned Counsel Mr. Patel appearing for the G.P.S.C. has submitted that the scaling is a well accepted modern method of comparing the merit of the candidates inter se in different optional subjects. In his submission a candidate securing raw marks in History cannot be compared on the basis of raw marks secured by another candidate in Science subject, and therefore, scaling is required. Mr. Patel submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment reported in 1987 (1) GLR 157 has accepted the method of scaling applied by U.P.S.C. as a modern method and he also submitted that the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in its unreported judgment, dated 19-8-1994 in case of Maheshkumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., has also confirmed the application of method of scaling by the R.P.S.C. and against the said judgment of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, S.L,P. is also rejected. Mr. Patel submitted that the method of scaling examined by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court was different and was wrong because it was on the basis of assessment of one examiner only as the model which is not in the present case. He submitted that the method applied by the G.P.S.C. is as per the recommendation of Mr. Natarajan in the book called "Scaling Techniques, What, Why and How" and the very method was applied by R.P.S.C. and its legality and validity is accepted by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court. He submitted that the contentions which are raised on behalf of the petitioners are in terms negatived by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court and therefore there is nothing wrong in applying scaling for assessing comparative merit. He also submitted that as per well settled principles of law this Court would normally not substitute its wisdom in the field of education and of conducting examination and they are left to the expert bodies constituted for such purpose. Mr. Patel during the course of his arguments has submitted that even by applying scaling method the merit order within the subject is not being altered until while considering the total number of marks in all subjects are considered. He also submitted that the majority of candidates who are meritorious are not affected by applying scaling method. In furtherance to his submission Mr. Patel has made statement at Bar that after applying scaling method on the total aggregate marks 815 candidates are called for interview. If the basis would have been raw marks number of candidates who were required to be called and interviewed would be 832 because for a particular number of marks there may be more than one candidate in terms of raw marks. He further stated that out of the candidates called on the basis of scaled marks or on the basis of raw marks 698 candidates are common, in other words, whether system of raw marks or system of scaling is applied, it makes no difference to their merit and they stand in the merit upto Sl. No. 698. He further stated that if the scaling method is approved by the Court then 117 candidates will be required to be called who have been called for interview in addition to 698 candidates will enter into interview itself, and if the scaling method is not approved and order is passed for preparing merit order on the basis of raw marks then in that case 134 candidates shall be required to be called for interview itself and the aforesaid 117 candidates shall go out from the interview itself.

12. Ms. Sonal Vyas appearing on behalf of candidates who have been called for interview after applying the scaling method and who are allowed to be joined as respondents in Spl.C.A. No. 310 of 2003 has supported and adopted the stand taken by the G.P.S.C. in applying the method of scaling at the marks.

13. In view of the aforesaid contentions raised so far as the application of scaling method by the G.P.S.C. is concerned, in my view, the first contention which is required to be considered is regarding the power to apply the scaling method by the G.P.S.C. As observed earlier the contention on behalf of the petitioners is that there, is no authority on the part of the G.P.S.C. to apply scaling method since the rules do not provide for application of such scaling. Reliance was placed upon the rules on behalf of the petitioners to show that there is reference to the marks obtained and marks obtained necessarily mean the raw marks and not scaled marks. It was also contended that by plain and simple reading of rules the meaning can be given by interpretation of rules and the Court would not add words. In my view such contention deserves to be rejected on the face of it because as per Article 320 of the Constitution of India the Union and State Public Service Commissions are enjoined with the duty to conduct the examinations and the Commissions are constitutional bodies for the purpose of conducting examinations. All actions from the inception and until the declaration of results of all types of tests which may be found proper by the Commission are put under the direct control and supervision of G.P.S.C. Rule cannot be read as exhaustive for the purpose of conducting of examinations. There may be large number of eventualities which are not and/or which may not have been envisaged under the Rules, but it will be within the control and power of the Commission to decide the modalities and the method to be adopted for such purpose. Therefore, I cannot accept the contention that the marks obtained is necessarily to be meant as raw marks and not scaled marks. In any system of examination the moderation is a well accepted principle for the purpose of getting the best result through the examiner. If the argument is accepted as that of raw marks then in that case even moderation will have to be excluded and thereafter marks assigned by the examiner are to be accepted as final. Such can never be the intention of the rule making authority and such construction, in my view, would run counter to the purpose for which the Public Service Commissions are constituted. Therefore, in any view, the word "marks" as referred to in the rules can be read as marks finally awarded or approved by the G.P.S.C. and it cannot be read as raw marks awarded by examiner concerned. Even reference to Rule 17 shows that the language used is "aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate". It would be worthwhile to take reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in case of Maheshkumar Khandelwal (supra). Even in the case before the Rajasthan High Court such a contention was raised and reference to the same was made at Para 44 of the judgment of the Division Bench of Rajasthan wherein view taken is that the scaled marks are also marks obtained for the purpose of said Rules and scaling of marks does not violate the scheme of the examination. Learned Counsel Mr. Pujara appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of U. P. v. Shyam Sunder, reported in 2000 (10) SCC 49 and in the matter of Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 152 as well as Mr. Mishra also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in the matter of Union of India v. Sankalchand Himmatlal Sheth and Anr., reported in AIR 1977 SC 2328, in the matter of Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A, Dikshitulu, reported in AIR 1979 SC 193 and in the matter of Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1230 to contend that the strict interpretation is called for on the word "marks" and if the scored marks are to be considered it is a deviation from the norms settled for the purpose of awarding marks. In my view, there is no question of interpreting the words "marks" as sought to be canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is always left to the body which conducts the examination to decide the method or the manner of assessment of marks. Even if the examiner has awarded marks it is now well settled that the system of moderation is always permissible with a view to reduce the difference amongst the assessment between two examiners. When the number of students and number of examiners are also more the assessment may differ from one examiner to another examiner. As observed earlier, the scheme for conducting examination as provided under the rules cannot be exhaustive in all respects. In my view there is no express provision made in the rules about method and manner of assessment of marks, and therefore, in the absence thereof it is to be deemed that such scheme is left to the discretion and wisdom of Public Service Commission which is conducting the examination. It cannot be read that since there is no provision under the rules there is no authority with the G.P.S.C. to decide the modality or mode of assessment of marks. Similarly, in the advertisement for such purpose in my view all steps are not required to be mentioned which can be undertaken for the purpose of conducting the examination or for the purpose of deciding the modalities for assessment of marks. The judgments upon which reliance placed by Mr. Pujara are altogether different in facts and circumstances and hence reliance placed is ill-founded. Therefore, I am of the view the contention that the G.P.S.C. has no power to decide the modality or method for assessment of marks, may be by scaling, is devoid of any merit, and therefore, deserves to be rejected.

24. Before the question is examined regarding the method applied by the G.P.S.C. for scaling, it is necessary to consider certain aspects which prompted the G.P.S.C. to apply scaling method. As recorded earlier, the statement has been made at Bar that the reasons for applying the scaling method at the preliminary examination is the same as that for main examination. Upon the request of the learned Counsel for the parties original file has been called upon with the nothings thereto from the G.P.S.C. A perusal of the noting dated 26-9-2001 at the time when the G.P.S.C. had to undertake the exercise of scrutiny of preliminary examination results it has been mentioned that if the marking is given on the basis of raw marks the candidates of History subject shall have more representations and the other candidates who opted for the other subjects will not have proper representation, Even Note No. 3 shows that the intention is to give representation to the candidates of all optional subjects equally. The pertinent aspect is that upon the note one of the members of the G.P.S.C. had recorded that if such criteria is adopted it may result into making reservation or extracting of the candidates on the basis of optional subject and whether the same would be in accordance with rules or law or precedent and it is also mentioned that it may be examined as to whether in U.P.S.C. such things are adopted or not. Even Note No. 3 which is there in the file of preliminary examination shows that the same is permitted with a view to give equal representations to the candidates opting for each optional subject. Even the second note, dated 1-10-2001 reiterates the same thing, namely, there is representation of 63.64% to me candidates opted for one or two optional subjects and the rest of the candidates opting for 26 different subjects as well as representation of 38, and therefore, it has been mentioned that for equal representation to the candidates of all the subjects proper justice should be rendered. The aforesaid clearly goes to show that the intention on the part of G.P.S.C. is not to assess the comparative merit of a student for the purpose of applying scaling method, but is with a view to give equal representation or to make equal treatment to the candidates on the basis of optional subjects by not only considering raw marks. The consequence can be that each candidate opting for different optional subjects must be given a representation at the time of deciding the method of marking. In my view such reasoning would basically frustrate the purpose for giving choice to the candidates of having optional subjects. There is no warrant or authority with the G.P.S.C. to make equal representation to the candidates of different subjects. It is the volition on the part of candidates to opt for subjects and the scheme of aforesaid statutory rules itself provide for. Whereas, the candidate having opted for A or B subject, the performance is only to be assessed and it cannot be said that merely because A has opted for X subjects and the number of candidates in X subjects are more they should not be given representation or less representation be given. The net effect is that the G.P.S.C. has made an attempt to make reservation on the basis of optional subjects which is not at all warranted in law. What is called for or what is rather required for G.P.S.C. is to assess the merit and it is open to the G.P.S.C. to assess comparative merit also but the consideration for which the scaling is applied and the noting in the file of G.P.S.C. clearly goes to show that the same is not with an intention to assess the comparative merit but is with an intention which is not warranted under law of making reservation on the basis of optional subject to each candidate. Even the formal statement which appeared on page 23/C shows that for each optional subject a degree of representation from each subject is kept in mind. The consequence would be that there will be a less representation of a candidate opting for X or Y subject if there are more number of candidates and the candidate who opted for an optional subject and the number of candidates are less in that optional subjects will get higher opportunity. In my view, this was not at all warranted on the part of G.P.S.C. to make reservation on the basis of optional subject or to apply scaling method with an intention to give representation to the candidates opting for different optional subjects. In any event, no such criteria or stipulation was provided at the time when the advertisement was issued nor there is any warrant for applying such reservation on the basis of optional subjects even as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose of conducting examination. On the contrary, the scheme of the rules is to see that candidates are equated equally irrespective of their choosing optional subjects. Under the circumstances, I find that the reasons prompted the G.P.S.C. to apply scaling method is in reality not for assessing the comparative merit of the candidate in different optional subjects but is with an intention to give representation on the basis of optional subject equally in such a manner that where number of candidates is more such candidates will get lesser representation and where number of candidates is less such candidates will get higher representation, both in comparison to total number of candidates appearing in the preliminary examination.