IMPORTANT POINT
Adoption of a system of scaling of marks awarded by the examiners invoked by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission with a view to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners being based on an expert study held not arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of power.

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-Leave granted.

2. 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 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 3.10.2002, 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.

3. Similarly, U.P.P.S.C. held examination for the Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch), Main Examination, 2001 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 of 2003 is in respect of Provincial 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. 100 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 Language I & II Paper-IV 200 marks

(a) English to Hindi & Vice Versa Paper-V 60 marks

(b) Hindi to Urdu & Vice Versa Paper-VI 40 marks

Total 850 marks

6. 4270 candidates appeared for the examination. For each of the 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 of distributio