IMPORTANT POINT
Process of evaluation of answer scripts decided by Commission after gathering information from other State Commissions as also UPSC is not unreasonable and does not warrant judicial review.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Recruitment – Public Service Commission moderating answer scripts and ordering declaration of result – Appellants contending that process of scaling ought to have been adopted as moderation adopted by the Commission in facts of the case is contrary to High Court ruling in CWJC No. 3892 of 2011 and Supreme Court decision in Sanjay Singh – CWJC No. 3892 of 2011 not giving any direction binding Commission to any particular course of action – High Court giving flexibility and leaving it open for the Commission to modulate its action as required in the facts of the case – Sanjay Singh not laying 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 – Law cannot require adoption of moderation to a particular kind of examination and scaling to others – Contention misconceived. (Para 13, 20, 21)
       (2007) 3 SCC 720 – Relied upon
       C.W.J.C. No.3892 of 2011; (2003) 12 SCC 701 – Referred
       (b) Service law – Recruitment – Evaluation of answer scripts – Commission adopting moderation process – Gathering information from other State Commissions as also Union Public Service Commission before deciding the process to be adopted – Information so gathered fully discussed and conscious decision taken by the Commission by resolution dated 15th January, 2013 to adopt moderation process – No deviation from C.W.J.C. NO.3892 of 2011 or (2007) 3 SCC 720 – Absence of reasons in the resolution which is not palpably unreasonable by itself cannot justify interference by Court. (Para 23)
       Facts of the case:
       The refusal of the High Court to interfere with the result of the 53rd to 55th Combined (Mains) Competitive Examinations, 2011 held by the Bihar Public Service Commission in May-June, 2012 is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.
       The principal basis on which interference of the High Court was sought is that in finalizing the results of the Examination the Commission had moderated the marks awarded by the examiners who had scrutinized the answer-sheets of the candidates instead of scaling down the said marks which process was required to be undergone in view of the fact that the examinations, so far as the optional papers are concerned, were in different subjects.
       Finding of the Court:
       Resolution of the Commission does not warrant judicial review.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Applications for Impleadment/ Intervention are allowed.

3. The refusal of the High Court to interfere with the result of the 53rd to 55th Combined (Mains) Competitive Examinations, 2011 held by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in May-June, 2012 is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.

4. The principal basis on which interference of the High Court was sought is that in finalizing the results of the Examination the Commission had moderated the marks awarded by the examiners who had scrutinized the answer-sheets of the candidates instead of scaling down the said marks which process was required to be undergone in view of the fact that the examinations, so far as the optional papers are concerned, were in different subjects. It is contended that the course adopted was contrary to the earlier order of the High Court dated 26th August, 2011 passed in a proceeding registered and numbered as C.W.J.C. No.3892 of 2011 besides being contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Sanjay Singh and Another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another, (2007) 3 SCC 720.

5. To appreciate the first contention advanced the operative part of the order dated 26th August, 2011 passed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. NO.3892 of 2011 may be reproduced hereinbelow:

“16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would be well-advised to frame Rules, may be after supplanting the existing Rules with respect to conduct of examinations, incorporating therein the system of moderation, as well as the system of scaling of raw marks. The Commission shall draw guidelines from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh Vs. U.P.PSC (supra), as well as the Rules of the Union Public Service Commission, and other Public Service Commissions, etc. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of six months from today. Till then, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh (supra), will guide the affairs of the Commission, with respect to all the examinations where the candidate has the choice of optional subjects, in so far as these two concepts are concerned.”

6. It is contended that the method adopted i.e. moderation is in clear breach of above directions issued by the High Court in its earlier order which is also between the same parties. No deviation, therefrom, by the Public Service Commission was permissible.

7. Insofar as the decision in Sanjay Singh (supra) is concerned, it is urged that this Court had clearly and categorically held the system of moderation is applicable only to cases where the candidates take a common examination i.e. where there are no optional subjects and all the papers in which the candidates appear are the same. In a situation where the subjects are different, according to the learned counsel, it has been held in Sanjay Singh (supra) that it is the scaling method which has to be upheld and in such situations the system of moderation would not be relevant. As the Combined Civil Services Examination held by the Public Service Commission involved taking of examination by the candidates in different subjects/papers, the results declared are vitiated as the same has been finalized by following the moderation method. This, in short, is the plea advanced on behalf of the appellants.

8. In reply, it is urged on behalf of the Commission that the format of the Civil Services Examination is covered by the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) and the Bihar Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951. Appendix 'D' thereto lays down the syllabus for the combined competitive examination. It is urged that apart from 4 (four) compulsory papers, the optional papers are divided into four categories/groups i.e. Groups 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'. While Group 'A' deals with Literature, Group 'B' deals broadly with Humanities subjects w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 968

IMPORTANT POINTProcess of evaluation of answer scripts decided by Commission after gathering information from other State Commissions as also UPSC is not unreasonable and does not warrant judicial review.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Process of evaluation of answer scripts decided by Commission after gathering information from other State Commissions as also UPSC is not unreasonable and does not warrant judicial review.