U.P. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION v. SUBHASH CHANDRA DIXIT AND ORS

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 210

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, B.N. SRIKRISHNA

Judgment text

U. P. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION v. SUBHASH CHANDRA DIXIT AND ORS. NOVEMBER 5, 2003 [K. G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B. N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ. ] Constitution ofIndia, 1950 : Articles 320 and 234-UP Public Service Commission (Regulation of Procedure and Conduct of Busines. 1) Amendment Act, 1976-Rule 51-UP Nyayik Sewa Niyamavali, 1951-Rule 19-Conduct of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination by State Public Service Commission-Adoption of scaling system by invoking power conferred under Rule 51 of 1976 Act in view ofRule 19 ofNiyamavali 1951-Correctness of-Held: Niyamavali, 1951 made by Governor in consultation with the Commission and High Court whereas 1976 Act not made in consultation with the Commission and High Court yet the provisions of the 1976 Act applicable for conducting the Recruitment Examination-Further, the 1976 Act gives guidelines for any recruitment to be made by U. P. P. S.

C whereas Niyamavali 1951 only gives special rules concerning Subordinate Judicial Service in the State, as such Niyatnavali is not a complete code in itself-On facts, State Commission correctly applied scaling formula and prepared merit of candidates for UP Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) Main Examination 2001 and Preliminary Examination, 2002-Hence, High Court not justified in interfering with the merit list prepared by the Commission. Articles 320, 14 and 16-Public Service Commissions-Conduct of c()l'1petitive examinations-Adoption ofscaling system-Correctness of-Held: Scaling system adopted to eliminate inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable-Also when scaling system is adopted after expert study, the Court would not interfere unless it is proved to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Words and Phrases : 'Aggregate Marks '-Meaning of U. P. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSIONv.

SUBHASHCHANDRA DIXIT 2J J Appellant-Uttar Pradesh Public Services Commission conducted the U. P. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2000, the Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch), Main Examination, 2001 and the Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2002. In these examinations, it applied a system of scaling of marks awarded by the examiners and thereafter, published the result. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the merit lists on the gronnd that the scaling of marks was arbitrary and illegal. Division Bench of High Court set aside the merit list. Hence the present appeals.

Appellant-Commission contended that Article 320 of the Constitution gives ample power to the Public Service Commission to conduct the examinations for appointment to the services of the Union and States and such power is not subject to any of the provisions contained in the Constitution; that it is the constitutional duty of the State Public Service Commission to conduct such examinations in a free and fair manner; and that the proviso to Section 51 of the UP Public Service Commission (Regulation of Procedure and Conduct of Business) Amendment Act, 1976 gives ample power to the Commission to adopt a scaling system to find out the most suitable candidates for selection and the marks awarded to the candidates could be varied by adopting such a system. Respondents contended that the examination for selection of Civil Judge [Jr.

Division) should have been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Niyamavali and any deviation therefrom would be illegal; that any of the provisions contained in the U. P. Public Services Commission (Regulation of Procedure and Conduct of Business) Act 1974 being contrary to the provisions of Niyamavali 1951 cannot be applied for the selection of Judicial Officers in the State as the Act of 1974 is not made in consultation with the State Public Services Commission and the High Court; that even if Rule 51 of 1974 Act permitted the U. P. P. S. C.

to adopt scaling of marks, the same should not have been applied in the case of selection of Judicial Officers; that Rule 19 of Niyamavali 1951 expressly says that the Commission would prepare the list of candidates in the order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded which means the marks assigned by various examiners to each of the candidates and not the marks assigned to the candidates after the scaling system is applied; that Niyamavali 1951 is a complete Code in itself and the selection process shall only be done in accordance with the provisions contained therein; and that the system of scaling was unreasonable and arbitrary and thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : I. The U. P. P. S. C.

has correctly applied the scaling formula and prepared the merit list of various candidates for the three examinations-Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) Main Examination, 2001; Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2002; and the U. P. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Examination. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in interfering with the merit list prepared by the Commission. The judgment of the High Court is set aside the merit list prepared by the Commission would prevail in the case of all the three examinations. (228-G-H; 229-A-B) 2. 1. U. P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamavali, 1951 was made by the Governor in consultation with the U. P. Public Services Commission and the High Court by virtue of the powers conferred by Article 234 of the Constitution whereas the provisions of the U. P.

Public Services Commission (Regulation of Procedure and Conduct of Business) Amendment Act, 1976 was not made in consultation with the Commission and the High Court. The Act of 1976 gives guidelines for any recruitment to be made by U. P. P. S. C. The proviso to Rule 51 of 1976 Act gives ample power to the Commission to adopt any method, device or formula to eliminate any variation in the marks awarded to the candidates. The various provisions deal with the method and manner in which the examinations are to be conducted. On the other hand, the Niyamavali, 1951 only gives the special rules concerning Subordinate Judicial Service in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It does not deal with the method and manner in which the examinations are to be conducted. Furthermore, the proviso to Rule 51 is not in any way in p conflict with Rule 19 of Niyamavali, 1951. Further, various steps and procedures have to be adopted in completing the recruitment for which detailed procedure has been laid down.

The procedure is not part of the Nyamavali 1951. Therefore, the Niyamavali 1951 is not a complete Cod~ in itself and the selection process would not only be done in accordance with the provisions contained therein. All the provisions of the Act of 1976 are applicable for the purpose of conducting examination for recruitment of Judicial Officers in the State. (222-8-H; 223-A-B) 2. 2. The expression 'aggregate marks' used in Rule 19 of the Niyamavali 1951 can only be construed as the final marks awarded after the scaling system is applied. The aggregate marks can only be considered U. P. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION v. SUBHASHCHANDRA DIX! T 2JJ to mean as the total marks finally obtained by the candidate after the complete valuation process is over. (222-C-DJ 2. 3. There is no case that the selection to the posts of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) was held in contravention of any of the rules made under Article 234 of the Constitution.

The Niyamavali, 1951 gives the various subjects and the qualifying marks for each subject. No such Rules have been violated and particularly there is no violation of Rule 19 of the Niyamavali, 1951. (224-A-B) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union ofIndia and Ors. , (198513 SCC 721; Durgacharan Misra v. State ofOrissa and Ors. , (1987) 4 SCC 646 and State of Bihar and Anr. v. Bal Mukund Sah and Ors. , (2000) 4 SCC 640, distinguished. 3. 1. The Proviso of Rule 51 of the 1976 Act gives power to the Commission to eliminate variation in the marks awarded to the candidates and to adopt any method, device or formula considered appropriate for that purpose. In the case of Judicial Service examination, more than four thousand candidates appeared. The answer papers were evaluated by 14 examiners. Some examiners were liberal in awarding marks whereas some others were strict in awarding marks. The difference in marks awarded by the examiners was sought to be minimized by applying the scaling formula.

Ifscaling method had not been used, only those candidates whose answer sheets were examined by liberal examiners alone would get selected and the candidates whose answer sheets were examined by strict examiners would be completely excluded, though the standard of their answers may be to some extent similar. The scaling system was, thus, adopted with a view to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners who participated in evaluation of answer sheets and the details have also been furnished as to how the scaling formula was adopted and applied. (226-E-G; 227-G-H) 3. 2. The observation of the Division Bench of the High Court that the Commission did not take care of varying standards which may have been applied by different examiners but has sought to reduce the variation of the marks awarded by the same examiner to different candidates whose answer sheets had been examined, is not correct.

The application of scaling formula to the examinations in question was neither arbitrary nor illegal. The selection of the candidates was done in a better way. Also it could not be proved that the adoption of scaling system has in any way caused injustice to any meritorious candidate. Moreover, this formula was adopted by the U. P. P. S. C. after an expert study and in such matters, the Court cannot sit in judgment and interfere with the same unless it is proved that it was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power and the selection itself was done contrary to the rules. Ultimately, the agency conducting the examination has to consider as to which method should be preferred and adopted having regard to the myriad situations that may arise before them. (228-C-G] Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The ChiefElection Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. , [1978] 2 SCR 272 and Kam/esh Haribhai Goradia v. Union ofIndia and Anr. , (1987) 1 GLR 157, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8609 of2003. From the Judgment and Order dated 3. 10. 2002 of the Allahabad High Court in C. M. W. P. No. 32802 of 2001. WITH C. A. No. 8613, 8614, 8611 and 8612 of 2003. R. N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, P. P. Rao, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, G. V. Rao, Ms. Sweta Garg, Shoeb Aalam, Vibhakar Mishra, Pankaj K. Singh, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, K. L. Janjani, S. W. A. Qadri, Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Pnikash for L. R. Singh for the Appellant. Rakesh Diwedi, P. P Malhotra, Vikas Singh, Vishwajit Singh, Ritesh Agrawal, Ms. Binu Tamta, R. C. Verma and Ajay K. Agrawal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted. Three of these appeals have been preferred by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Commission (hereinafter called as "U. P. P. S. C. ") challenging the judgments rendered on 3. 10. 2002 and 11. 12.

2002 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions. The U. P. P. S. C. conducted various competitive examinations and in these examinations, the U. P. P. S. C. applied a system of scaling of marks awarded by the examiners who valued the answer papers. The system of scaling of U. P. PUBLICSERVICESCOMMISSIONv. SUBHASHCHANDRADIXIT[BALAKRISHNAN,J. J 215 marks was invoked in the U. P. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination held in August 2000, the result of which was published on 25. 1. 2001. Some of the candidates, who could not secure selection in the examination assailed the examination system adopted by the U. P. P. S. C. mainly on the ground that the introduction of scaling of marks was arbitrary and illegal. Their plea was accepted by the Division Bench and by judgment dated 3. I0. 2002, the Division Bench set aside the merit list prepared by the U. P. P. S. C. in respect of the Civil Judge (Jr.

Division) Examination, 2000 and directed that the merit list be prepared afresh on the basis of actual marks secured by the candidates without applying the formula of scaling. SLP (Civil) No. 23723 of 2002 is filed against that decision. Similarly, U. P. P. S. C. held examination for tile Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch), Main Examination, 200I and Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2002. In both these examinations, U. P. P. S. C. applied the system of scaling. The results of these two examinations were also challenged on similar grounds and the Division Bench set aside the final merit list prepared by the U. P. P. S. C. in respect of these two examinations. SLP (Civil) No. 207 of2003 is in respect ofProvincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) Main Examination, 2001 and SLP(Civil) No. 208 of 2003 arises out of the examination of Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch), Preliminary Examination, 2002.

The remaining two appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 3758 of 2003 and SLP(C) No. 6295 of 2003 have been preferred by candidates aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments of the High Court. At first, we shall consider the SLP (Civil) No. 23723 of 2002 in respect of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Examination, 2000. The U. P. P. S. C. advertised . for selection of 147 posts of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Examination, 2000. The examination consisted of written tests and viva voce. Total marks for written examinations were 850. I00 marks were assigned for viva voce. The details are as follows:- Subjects Marks (i) Present day Paper-I 150 marks (ii) Substantive Law Paper-II 200 marks (iii) Procedural Law Paper-III 200 marks (iv) Criminal & Revenue Law Paper-IV 200 marks Language I & II (a) English to Hindi & Vice Versa Paper-V 60 marks (b) Hindi to Urdu & Vice Versa Paper-VI 40 marks Total 850 marks 4270 candidates appeared for the examination.

For each ofthe subjects in the written examination, there were around 14 examiners and each of them evaluated about 300 answer sheets, except in language papers. U. P. P. S. C. had earlier held similar examination for Civil Judge (Jr. Division) for selection of Judicial Officers in 1997 and 1999. According to the U. P. P. S. C. , there was wide disparity in awarding marks by the various examiners in respect of the same subject. The answer sheets were randomised before being given to examiners. The randomisation was done at three stages, namely, at the stage of allotment of roll numbers, allotment of centre and at the time ofdistribution of answer sheets to the examiners for evaluation. U. P. P. S. C. received representation from several quarters to adopt a scientific method of evaluation of marks awarded by different examiners in respect of common papers. It was noticed that the different examiners adopted l'ifferent yardsticks to award the marks to the candidates.

Thus, the candidates were left at the whims of the examiners. The gross disparity between two sets of examiners resulted in injustice to some ofthe candidates and therefore a check was required. It was noticed that the marks awarded by two different sets of examiners required to be scaled in accordance with certain universally accepted method. U. P. P. S. C. considered the different facets of scaling system and appointed a three-member committee to carry out an in-depth study of the scaling system. The members ofthis committee consisted of Professors from reputed universities. U. P. P. S. C. considered the recommendations made by the expert committee and on 7. 9. 1996 accepted the report of the Committee. U. P. P. S. C. resolved to apply the formula of scaling and thereafter, it was made applicable to the PCS Preliminary Examination, 1996 and also in PCS Main Examination held in 1996. Considering the utility of the scaling system, the U. P. P. S. C. decided in its meeting on 13. 10.

1999 to apply the scaling pattern for all the examinations conducted by them. In the case of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Examination, 2000, the answer sheets were randomised in order to avoid duplicity or any possible mischief. The marks awarded by each examiner were considered and scaled in accordance with the formula adopted by the U. P. P. S. C. The said formula was based on opinion of experts on the subject and accordingly the result was published by the U. P. P. S. C. The merit list published by the U. P. P. S. C was challenged by the respondents in SLP (Civil) No. 23723 of U. P. PUBLICSERVICESCOMMISSION v. SUBHASHCHANDRADIXIT[BALAKRISHNAN,J] 2J7 2002 on the ground that the scaling system adopted by U. P. P. S. C. was confusing, arbitrary and without any reasonable basis. It was alleged that arbitrary marks were awarded to certain candidates in the name of scaling system to provide undue favour to them. It was contended that the U. P. P. S. C.

had not disclosed the guidelines and criteria adopted in implementing the scaling system and, therefore, it was arbitrary and unjustified. It was also contended that several candidates had been awarded less than 40% marks without any basis whereas several other candidates who had secured lesser marks in the written tests were awarded more than 60% or 70% marks. The Division Bench considered the various contentions raised by the respondents as well as the U. P. P. S. C. and held that the application of scaling was not justified nor supported by any valid statutory pe1TI1ission. The Division Bench was ofthe opinion that where selection was to be made on comparative merit, the adoption of any such process which had the effect of adding marks to the actual score of the candidate, was destructive of the system whereas the objective was to select a small number of best candidates on the basis of their merit out of thousands who had appeared in the examination.

The Division Bench also held that the U. P. P. S. C. had no power under Rule 51 of the U. P. P. S. C, (Regulation of Procedure and Conduct of Business) Act, 1974 to invoke the scaling system, Rule 51 says that the merit list shall be prepared after adding the marks of interview/personality test with the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination, The Division Bench was ofthe opinion that the expression 'marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination' meant the actual marks awarded by the exa but has sought to reduce the variation ofthe marks awarded by the same examiner to different candidates whose answer sheets had been examined, is correct. The Division Bench was of the view that as a result of scaling, the marks of the candidates who had secured zero marks were enhanced to 18 and this was illegal and thus affected the selection process. This finding is to be understood to mean as to how the scaling system was applied.

18 marks were given notionally to a candidate who secured zero marks so as to indicate the variation in marks secured by the candidates and to fix the Mean marks. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the application of scaling formula to the examinations in question was either arbitrary or illegal. The selection of the candidates was done in a better way. Moreover, this formula was adopted by the U. P. P. S. C. after an expert study and in such p matters, the Court cannot sit in judgment and interfere with the same unless it is proved that it was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power and the selection itself was done contrary to the rules. Ultimately, the agency conducting the examination has to consider as to which method should be preferred and adopted having regard to the myriad situations that may arise before them. The U. P. P. S. C.

has applied the scaling formula and prepared the merit list of various candidates for the three examinations, namely, the Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch), Main Examination, 2001; Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2002; and the U. P. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Examination. U. P. PUBLICSERVICESCOMMISSIONv. SUBHASHCHANDRADIXIT[BALAKRISHNAN,J. ]229 The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in interfering A with the merit list prepared by the Commission. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the merit list prepared by the Commission shall prevail in the case of all the three examinations referred to above. The appeals are accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. N. J. Appeals allowed. B I•